Madam CHAIR – Honurable members, while the Leader is getting herself and her team organised there, I wish to make a brief statement about the way this Committee of the Whole is to run, to assist the important process to run smoothly because it is a little bit different, obviously, from a Committee stage of a bill.
The resolution of the Council for 30 December 2025 empowers this committee to consider each clause, schedule, and item in the State Policies and Projects (Macquarie Point Precinct) Order 2025. The extent of the Committee’s powers are as provided for by that resolution.
The normal conventions of the Committee of the Whole will apply. This is not an opportunity to revisit broader arguments already made in the substantive debate on this order, or to introduce issues unrelated to the clause or item under consideration.
I remind members that debate in Committee of the Whole is not a grievance type debate. Questions asked on individual clauses or items should be specifically relevant to the clause or item under consideration.
The order is made up of 10 clauses and eight schedules. Six of the schedules, in turn, contain a number of further clauses, such as schedules 2 and 8, which contain a number of items. The Deputy Clerk will call the individual clauses and items, as would occur in the Committee of the Whole when it’s considering a bill. Members will be familiar with that process.
Depending on the number of questions being asked, I may direct the Deputy Clerk to move through multiple clauses or items in one call. In such cases, members should indicate which clause or item they wish to ask questions on.
As each clause or item is called, I will ask the question: ‘Any questions?’ The normal Standing Orders apply with members having three opportunities to speak on each clause or item, with the exception of the Leader who may speak as many times as is required.
To be clear, as was contained in the Council’s resolution, there is no scope for this Committee to amend any part of the order. This includes by disagreeing with individual parts. The order has already been made by the Governor under section 26(9) of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993. It provides that the role of the Council is to either approve or not the order. This Committee of the Whole simply provides members the opportunity to ask questions of the Leader regarding the order’s individual clauses and items.
As provided by the resolution of the Council, once all members have asked questions on an individual clause or item, I will declare – or the Chair, if it is not me – will declare the clause or item has been considered.
This is a declaration that does not involve a question being put. As such, there is no vote and, as a consequence, is not open for any member to call a division on individual clauses or items.
Once all clauses, schedules, and items of the order have been declared as considered, the Chair is to be directed to report back to the Council. As provided for by the Council’s resolution, the Committee of the Whole report is to be limited to:
The Committee has considered the State Policies and Projects (Macquarie Point Precinct) Order 2025 (No. 49).
This Committee of the Whole has the potential to be a lengthy process. As such, I ask members to listen carefully as the Deputy Clerk moves through the clauses and items and seek the call where appropriate.
If there are no further questions and the Leader is ready to proceed, I will ask the Deputy Clerk to commence.
Clause 1 considered.
Clauses 2 and 3 –
Madam CHAIR – Member for Hobart, which one?
Ms O’CONNOR – This is in the Interpretation section –
Madam CHAIR – That’s clause 3. The Deputy Clerk called clauses 2 and 3. We need to deal with clause 2 first.
Clause 2 considered.
Clause 3 –
Interpretation
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the Interpretation section of the order. I have questions pertaining to the relevant regulator. In the order, it says:
… in relation to a condition specified in this order, means the agency responsible for enforcing the condition.
I seek to better understand the intersection between the secretary of the Department of State Growth, the Environment Protection Authority, and also Hobart City Council as the planning authority for Hobart. Is the Leader for the government able to clarify that intersection as regulators and planning authorities between council, which is the planning authority, and the Department of State Growth, where we have the secretary for the department able to approve conditions?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, there will be a draft MOU with the Hobart City Council. The Hobart City Council and the EPA will have their normal powers that they would normally have under the LUPA act. However, they may also ask the Department of State Growth to have a person available delegated to be part of that process.
Ms O’CONNOR – As I understand it, the MOU is well developed that the Department of State Growth seeks to sign with Hobart City Council. Can the Leader provide some clarity on where liability lies under the relevant regulator provision of the Interpretation section of the order? Also, given that we’re outsourcing the compliance work to the developers but council can’t transfer liability to the Department of State Growth if they don’t enforce conditions, where does liability lie should someone take issue or there has been a breach of conditions? Can the Leader confirm it lies with Hobart City Council?
Ms RATTRAY – Issues of liability don’t change. They stay with the relevant contractor, proponent, whoever that might be. That doesn’t change.
Ms O’Connor – And ultimately council.
Ms RATTRAY – Also, in regard to – there will be a consideration of making the MOU public. That may assist the member.
Ms O’Connor – It doesn’t answer the liability question, through you, Madam Chair.
Ms RATTRAY – If there is a dispute around liability, that will be determined by the court.
Ms O’Connor – The law is the law; that’s right.
CHAIR – Member for Hobart, third call.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that this is my third call, I will simply note that my last question wasn’t adequately answered. It would appear that while State Growth’s secretary will be making decisions, council will retain liability for problems.
I go now to the Interpretation section that relates to the site environmental management plan. Can the Leader confirm when the site environmental management plan is likely to be complete? Can the Leader confirm that it will not be Appendix LL, which was provided by Macquarie Point Development Corporation to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which contains a four year old environmental management plan?
Ms RATTRAY – I will seek some advice, thank you, Madam Chair.
There is an existing site environmental management plan. It is a dynamic document and will be regularly updated. It was last updated on 1 December 2025.
Ms WEBB – I wanted to follow up on the other questions that the member for Hobart had put in relation to the MOU and the Hobart City Council. To clarify: liability still stays with the council as the body responsible. However, for example, if under the MOU, DSG in some sense has taken on responsibility, and then there are some compliance issues which then incur legal proceedings and legal costs, is it going to be Hobart City Council that bears those costs as it plays out potentially in courts, or is it going to be DSG who stumps up to defend what it may have been at fault in relation to?
Ms RATTRAY – Under the MOU, responsibility for enforcement in some circumstances will be delegated to State Growth. In these circumstances, State Growth will bear the cost of enforcement. As I previously said, if there’s any dispute, then the court will determine those disputes.
Ms WEBB – Of course, the court will determine disputes. I’m wondering about the position that the council is left in. Ultimately, it’s responsible, even if under the MOU something has been delegated. That sounds potentially precarious.
In terms of the MOU, does it have any particular legal status or weight of that kind, or is it something that’s really just a bit of an agreement on paper between the two agencies? Will the court attend to it, for example?
Ms RATTRAY – I will just clarify something.
The MOU is an agreement between the two parties. The council is a planning authority and always carries some risk. The MOU is not legally binding, but delegations under LUPAA is a statutory authorisation and carries legal weight.
Ms THOMAS – My first question is in relation to the definition of ‘project’, where it says.
Project means the use and development of Project land for:
(a) the Stadium; and
(b) the relocation of the Goods Shed within Project land;
(c) a concourse and plaza surrounding the Stadium; and
(d) associated works including but not limited to, access, parking, landscaping and signage.
What else could possibly be included in scope where there is reference to ‘but not limited to’? Could this include transport infrastructure, the northern access road, and housing? Is there anything else that could possibly be included?
Ms RATTRAY – In answer to the honourable member’s question: it’s limited to the project land which captures the stadium footprint and surrounding access and plazas onsite.
Ms Thomas – Could you just repeat that, sorry, it’s limited to –
Ms RATTRAY – It’s limited to the project land, which captures the stadium footprint and surrounding access and plazas onsite.
Ms THOMAS – My next question is in relation to the definition of ‘Secretary’. In the Interpretation section, it says:
Secretary means the Secretary of the Department;
Page 157 of the order says the order is administered in the Department of State Growth, which suggests that this reference to secretary is referring to the secretary of State Growth.
Can the Leader clarify that? If so, how does that intersect with the commitment that I have received from the government that to reduce any perception of conflict between the secretary of the Department of State Growth and ongoing oversight of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, the administrative oversight of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act 2012 will be moved to the Department of Premier and Cabinet?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, it is the secretary of DSG. Changing of the act as committed to does not change the order. However, the change as committed means that the DPAC secretary becomes the primary adviser to the minister for the MPDC.
Ms THOMAS – Thank you for clarifying that so effectively. I have a bunch of related questions here –
Madam CHAIR – Put them all in together as this is your last call.
Ms THOMAS – Effectively that is avoiding any conflict between – well, it’s avoiding having the one secretary reporting through the – I don’t know how I am going to frame this.
The secretary of State Growth and the secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet both having oversight of the project is effectively what it provides for, is my understanding.
Further to that, there are 24 references to conditions or variations being approved by the secretary of State Growth, as you’ve just clarified in the order. Can you confirm that in each and every case, the secretary of Department of State Growth will be required to consult with the secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, as per the commitment I’ve received from the government that the secretary of the Department of State Growth will consult with the head of the State Service before making any decisions on any conditions set out in the order?
Can you confirm that in each and every of those 24 conditions or variations referred to in the order, and any others if I have missed any, in each and every case, the Department of State Growth secretary will be required to consult with the secretary of DPAC? If so, how will the secretary of DPAC ensure that this consultation occurs. Will this consultation be documented and reported to the Public Accounts Committee?
Ms RATTRAY – The minister for Mac Point can issue directions to the MPDC, and DPAC will provide advice on directions, and DSG – the Department of State Growth – will consider and approve plans under the order. The secretary of State Growth has agreed to consult with the secretary of DPAC on all decisions. The secretary of State Growth and the secretary of DPAC will be available to answer questions and report to the PAC.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, I’m following up on a question from the member for Elwick around the definition of ‘Project’ and ‘Project land’, because they intersect together.
I wanted to clarify: ‘Project land’ as defined here doesn’t include any TasPorts land; because, of course, in the government’s response, there’s the imputation that there will be TasPorts land made available and rolled into this precinct in some fashion, although no detail about that. Does this order contemplate that? What will occur if there is TasPorts land that is made available for the project and there is some crossover into land outside of what’s described here in ‘Project land’?
Ms RATTRAY – No, it does not include any TasPorts’ land because the stadium will not be developed on TasPorts’ land. The project –
Ms Webb – It was suggested to be part of the precinct. Is it just the stadium or the precinct? It’s in the government’s response. I just referred to that.
Ms RATTRAY – The project does not include the northern access road. The project is also defined by the plans in schedule 2 and associated works are works directly relevant to the construction of the stadium. Furthermore, TasPorts and the MPDC are currently working on plans for the activation of both MPDC land and the TasPorts commercial zone as part of the broader precinct plan. I trust that clarifies.
Clause 3 considered.
Clause 4 considered.
Clause 5 –
General conditions
[12.01 a.m.]
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the clause that relates to general conditions and I’m seeking some clarity here about the government’s oversight and assurance framework as it relates to these general conditions, noting that the government has announced the establishment of the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee and committed to the honourable member for Elwick to have a probity adviser in place.
Can the Leader explain what the intersection is between that framework and the details of the contract signed with the AFL itself, which under schedule 11, Governance Protocol, clause 4, establishes a steering committee. That steering committee, which has on it representatives of government, as well as the commonwealth and the AFL, is responsible to the minister for state development, construction, and housing for ensuring that the projects are delivered to a specified budget and within determined timeframes. It provides strategic leadership and oversight for each project and provides a forum for interested parties to have input into the decision making process.
My question to the Leader is: there’s no mention in the AFL contract of the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee or the probity adviser, but there are very clear provisions here about who’s making the decisions, who’s providing the advice, and who’s calling the shots. It’s neither of those newly established entities. Whose advice prevails in this instance? That would be very helpful to understand.
Ms RATTRAY – The probity adviser will provide assurances that the decisions under the order are made with due process. The Oversight Committee supports the provision of advice to the Cabinet Committee on whether the project is being delivered within agreed parameters. The Steering Committee manages risks within the project. Furthermore, the project governance includes internal governance, including the board, the Project Steering Committee as set out in the agreement, and additional oversight by the state. This includes the Oversight Committee –
Ms O’Connor – Which one, sorry?
Ms RATTRAY – The Oversight Committee and the Committee of Cabinet and PAC, and the Oversight Committee has been in place for over a year. The Project Steering Committee is not a decision-making forum.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, what a tangled web has been woven here. We’ve got a Steering Committee under the contract and a project coordination group under the contract, both agreed contractually, that are a key provider of advice on the project and then you’ve set up this other bureaucratic architecture over here.
Can the Leader for government confirm that, when it comes to the core source of advice, of input into decision making around this project, it will be the Steering Committee that’s established – which has a member of the AFL and the Commonwealth, Stadiums Tasmania, MPDC, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Department of Treasury and Finance, Department of State Growth and the secretary of State Growth on it and the project coordination group are in fact the contractual entities that will have the most authority to have input into the projects?
And that, in fact, the probity adviser position, which the government has in its desperation promised, will have no connection with the steering committee or the project coordination group?
Ms RATTRAY – The Project Steering Committee is not a decision-making forum, which I’ve already said.
Ms O’Connor – Nor is the Oversight Committee or the probity adviser. That’s not the question, with respect.
Ms RATTRAY – This is a layered governance that builds confidence in the oversight of the project, and all groups have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the MPDC board is ultimately accountable for the project. The Oversight Committee provides additional oversight and guidance from a state perspective, and it considers risks and delivery and provides advice to Cabinet to inform decision making.
Ms O’CONNOR – Leader, it’s obviously a governance mess that has been set up here because the government’s made it up as they go along.
What is the membership by position of the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee? Can the Leader confirm that, in some cases, bureaucrats who are on the Steering Committee under the AFL contract or the project coordination group will also be on that Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee? You will have these multiple bodies, stuffed full of bureaucrats, who are talking to themselves in many ways, in a completely messy governance framework. How on earth do you expect this to work and instil any faith that this layered governance process won’t just become a complete dog’s breakfast?
More importantly, who is on the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee? Can you confirm a number of those members will be on the Steering Committee and the project coordination group, which are requirements under the AFL contract?
Ms RATTRAY – The committee coordinates across all program level activities for Macquarie Point Urban Renewal under delegation from the Cabinet committee.
The Oversight Committee is comprised of the following members – and I’m happy to provide this to the member at a later time:
• the secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who is the chair,
• the secretary of Department of Treasury and Finance, who is the deputy chair, and
• the secretary of the Department of State Growth –
Ms O’Connor – Amazing. They’re also all on the Steering Committee.
Ms RATTRAY – And the Crown Solicitor from the Office of the Crown Solicitor is an advisory member.
The officials from relevant agencies and entities are to attend as required and at the discretion of the chair. This may include government agency representatives and project delivery representatives from the MPDC, Stadiums Tasmania, and TasPorts. Cricket Tasmania and the Tasmania Devils may also be invited to attend for relevant agenda items.
Clause 5 considered.
Clause 6 –
Planning Conditions
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause that relates to planning conditions. Can the Leader explain why the word ‘generally’ was inserted into this clause? It says:
(1) The Project must be carried out, generally, in accordance with the approved plans and documentation specified in Schedule 2, unless otherwise modified in accordance with this order.
Why would you insert ‘generally’ into a planning provision in this order? Wouldn’t we want the project to be compliant, not generally, but routinely?
Given we’ve now established that the Hobart City Council will retain civil liability for this project in the main, as the planning body responsible for that beautiful waterfront you’re about to desecrate, can we see the MOU that has been prepared for signing between the Department of State Growth and the Hobart City Council?
Can the Leader for government outline any concerns which have been expressed by Hobart City Council to government about the provisions within that MOU and whether or not, for example, they contain sufficient protections for the public interest and sufficient preventions to protect Hobart City Council for having to answer for the mistakes of this project in court?
Ms RATTRAY – In regard to your question about ‘generally,’ the project must have flexibility to modify plans to address issues as they arise. That’s the reason why ‘generally’ is there.
The order sets out the arrangements for the planned finalisation and development of the operational plans. Those documents will become part of the order. This clause avoids conflict in those documents. Further, the Hobart City Council has not raised concerns with the clauses of the MOU, and State Growth will be authorised to enforce some aspects of the order limiting the responsibilities of the Hobart City Council. Furthermore, the MOU is in the council agenda, so it is public. It’s not signed or final as yet because the Hobart City Council has deferred that to mid-December. It must be on their agenda for mid-December, which is not far away.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, given that we’ve established the same bureaucrats who will be on the contractually required steering committee and the project coordination group – and for the benefit of councillors who are listening – the contractually required steering committee has on it the secretary of the Department of State Growth; a nominee from State Growth; a nominee from Treasury and Finance; and a nominee from Premier and Cabinet. We’ve got similar, in fact, the same membership, in significant part, on the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee. Same bureaucrats talking to and advising each other, presumably.
Can the government see here that there’s a serious potential for conflict of interest? For ideas not being sufficiently tested or challenged? Of various arms of government being part of this project, just affirming all its processes and decision-making? Isn’t there clearly here a conflict of interest between those DSG officers who are part of these governance and oversight arrangements?
As we know, DSG is supposed to be the entity that’s taking action on breaches of conditions. It puts them in a difficult position because they are state employees working on a state project. The history here in Tasmania is that public servants sometimes feel unable to speak freely and give frank and fearless advice.
How is government proposing that those multiple layers of conflict of interest will not only be managed, but that they won’t be allowed to lead to bad decision-making, misallocation of funds, failure to enforce conditions and the like?
Ms RATTRAY – The only overlap in the two committees as currently constituted is the secretary of State Growth. The transfer of the MPDC Act to DPAC means that chairing responsibility for the steering committee also needs to change. Further, the government will be engaging with the AFL to agree to this change to the club development and funding agreement.
Ms O’Connor – You can renegotiate parts of a contract. Who would have thought?
Madam CHAIR – Order. You have another call, so let her finish her answer.
Ms RATTRAY – Furthermore, the secretary of DPAC will not chair the steering committee
Ms O’Connor – Currently in the contract, through you, Madam Chair, the secretary does.
Was that my last call, Chair?
Madam CHAIR – You’ve got one more if you want to use it.
Ms O’CONNOR – I guess this is just a global question. Given that we’ve established the governance and oversight framework is one kind way of putting it is that it’s ‘layered’; another is that it’s chaotic and fraught with risk. When things go wrong on site, whether it’s with the treatment and disposal of all that contaminated soil, or construction methods that are not safe and proved to be not safe, who ultimately bears responsibility and liability for any failings, any public health risk, any danger to people, of this project? Who is it?
Ms RATTRAY – In response to your question about ‘ultimately accountable’. In regard to the management of funds the MPDC is the accountable authority.
Ms O’Connor – The minister is, ultimately, actually, but that wasn’t the question. Through you, Madam Chair, the question was one of civil liability, ultimately, and where responsibility lies when things go wrong. The Council has not been given a satisfactory answer.
Madam CHAIR – It’s up to the Leader to choose how she answers, but I do accept that was the question you put.
Ms RATTRAY – Again, the response is it’s the Macquarie Point Development Corporation.
Ms O’Connor – Can be sued, should things go wrong?
Ms RATTRAY – That’s who is accountable.
Ms O’Connor – Can you ask your advisers please to provide better advice on that?
Ms WEBB – I’m going to reiterate that question, noting that my colleague has run out of her calls. It isn’t a clear enough answer. It would be helpful if you could provide a clearer answer on that, I believe, about the legal responsibility. Who will be held accountable in that way? Is it the Macquarie Point Development Corporation? Who is it? Accountable is a different concept.
Ms RATTRAY – The Macquarie Point Development Corporation is a legal entity and can be sued.
Ms Webb – Right, thank you.
Ms THOMAS – In relation to the governance, I’m wondering if you can confirm the role of the independent probity adviser in overseeing the decision-making of the government, relevant secretaries, Macquarie Point Development Corporation and Stadiums Tasmania in monitoring the process from project approval, making sure it’s fair and equitable and legally compliant. Just that the independent probity adviser will oversee the government and the Macquarie Point Development Corporation decision-making and what that will look like.
Ms RATTRAY – The probity adviser will monitor all decisions of all regulators and entities engaged in decisions made under the order.
Ms THOMAS – Will the independent probity adviser report through to the Public Accounts Committee?
Ms RATTRAY – I’ve been advised that if requested by the Public Accounts Committee, then yes, they will present.
Ms WEBB – In terms of the oversight, the monitoring of decision-making that the probity adviser will do, in what timeliness will that occur? For example, as decisions are made by each of the relevant groups or committees, or whoever they are that are being monitored, I take it that there’d be a number of monitoring tasks to be done. Decisions are made, I presume say in a meeting, and what timeliness is there then the monitoring done and in terms of reporting, it sounded like you said that the probity adviser would only be interacting with PAC on behalf of the parliament when called, but is there a regular way that the probity adviser, in a publicly accountable way, reports on their findings as they monitor decision making?
There must be public transparency about that, and reporting on it. I’d like to understand how and with what frequency, and how it will be transparent that that is done.
Ms RATTRAY – I’m advised there will be a detailed probity plan that will include timeframes and reporting arrangements, and this plan can be made available to the Public Accounts Committee.
CHAIR – Member for Nelson, third call.
Ms WEBB – That doesn’t answer my question. Why wouldn’t the Public Accounts Committee be consulted on the development of that probity plan rather than presented with it as a completed item?
In terms of presenting it to the Public Accounts Committee, I assume that means it will be done in a public way, so it becomes a public parliamentary document that others can access too. I’d like confirmation on that. I still haven’t had an answer to my earlier question which related to the timeliness of monitoring of decision making. Your answer to me might be, ‘That will be in the plan,’ but I would like to understand what the thinking is now.
There must be thinking now on how this will work. This probity adviser, do they immediately get minutes of meetings post meeting, for example, to be able to monitor ongoing decision making? Do they get a monthly update from the various entities they’re monitoring, for example? I don’t want the answer to be, ‘That will be in the probity plan.’ I’d like to understand the thinking right now about how this might look, given that it has been presented to us as a mechanism to deliver confidence as we are considering this order, and we have not yet had our final vote on it.
Ms RATTRAY – I have some responses here. The probity advisers monitor compliance with process, and they prepare reports on such processes. The probity advisers are usually present in relevant meetings. Decisions made and plans approved under the order will be published, and the probity plan will be one of these. The probity plan will be public. In regard to –
Madam CHAIR – Could the honourable leader turn around a bit? The microphone is right behind you and you’re making it difficult for Hansard, and you are addressing the Chair as well. I appreciate that it’s challenging in that position. Keep going, but just remember where your microphone is.
Ms RATTRAY – Apologies. It’s always hard when you’ve got your back to the honourable member who’s asked the question. Thank you. I’m quite new at this.
Madam CHAIR – It wasn’t a criticism.
Ms RATTRAY – I know it wasn’t a criticism, just for those people who might think, ‘Shouldn’t she know that?’
It’s hard to give a definitive timeframe because it depends on the status of the project and the relevant decision. It’s just not possible to give that definitive timeframe. Again, be assured that the probity plan will be public.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Elwick, third call.
Ms THOMAS – Madam Chair, can the Leader confirm that, as per the government’s oversight and assurance framework, the probity adviser will operate independently of the project team and also report directly to the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee? Would it be reasonable to expect that the probity adviser would report to each formal meeting of the Macquarie Point Urban Renewal Oversight Committee?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, yes, they can report to the oversight committee, and they can attend those meetings as well.
Ms Thomas – It is the intention that they will?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, that’s correct.
Mr GAFFNEY – A point of clarification: if the probity adviser is monitoring the decision, will the probity adviser have access to all the information that informs that decision?
Ms RATTRAY – The answer is a definite yes.
Clause 6 considered.
Clause 7 –
Aboriginal heritage conditions
Mr GAFFNEY – A point of clarification for understanding, and it’s not specific to this: because this is an interesting project and for those listening on from the outside, it’s very – I’m not going to say complicated, but it is different to how we usually operate –
Madam CHAIR – I did explain that exactly in my overarching comments.
Mr GAFFNEY – I heard that. What my question is: if I think I’ve got a question to do with this point – it might be the TSO, and the TSO comes up here, I might have to stand up here and say, ‘Is this the right time for me to raise that point?’ You might have to say, ‘No, you’ve got to raise it down here.’
Madam CHAIR – Which is what we do.
Mr GAFFNEY – What I’m asking is: if we miss the call on something because of the nature of this document, what flexibility is there to go back and address that? How do you want that to operate?
Madam CHAIR – It is up to members to be aware of where their questions sit.
Mr GAFFNEY – I appreciate that. In normal bills we would. However, in this one, it’s complicated. When bringing up issues – you’re not quite certain whether that signage issue is to do with the plan, or that signage issue is to do with something further along in the draft.
Madam CHAIR – The deliberation in this stage is to consider the clause as it’s read there. If the question relates to matters that are referred to in the clause, then it’s a fair question.
Mr GAFFNEY – Yes.
Madam CHAIR – I reiterate the point that it is up to members to ask the questions where they feel they fit. If there was a real issue that was raised later on in this process, there is the process that’s possible of the recommittal. We would have to get leave to do that and we’d have to go back to the whole Council to get that approved.
There is a process there. It is incumbent on members. It is not up to me to tell you exactly where the questions need to be asked. You need to ask the questions where they fall.
Mr GAFFNEY – I’ll give an example of what
Madam CHAIR – This is the third stand for you on this, too.
Mr GAFFNEY – With 7. A6 talks about noise and vibration to do with
Madam CHAIR -No. We’re in clause 7.
Mr GAFFNEY – Yes, I’m asking for some clarification about how this is going to work. I am giving an example because I want to understand so I don’t miss the call.
With 7. A6 mentions noise and vibration to do with
Madam CHAIR – Can you direct to where you’re talking about?
Mr GAFFNEY – Page 19, 7.A6. It mentions here noise and vibration with about six or seven different groups. I know the TSO comes up further down the track. Am I to raise my questions concerning the TSO here, or do I raise them further down the track when there’s a greater volume of questions to do with the TSO? I just want to know where.
Madam CHAIR – If the question relates to the matters in that clause, that’s a matter for you. I preside over the the proceedings here. I don’t make decisions for members.
Mr Gaffney – It was a procedural measure.
Madam CHAIR – If the Leader thinks there’s a better place for the question, she could direct, but it’s not my job to do that.
Mr Gaffney – Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s what I wanted to know, that if I’m raising something in the wrong section, will the Leader say we’ll deal with that later?
Madam CHAIR – That’s up to the Leader and how she responds to the questions.
Ms RATTRAY – I can advise, Madam Chair, that if something belongs in a schedule, for instance, as the member has indicated, then I certainly will, on the advice of these very wise people here, ask the member to use that particular area.
Mr Gaffney – Thank you, Leader.
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause that relates to the, as yet, unwritten and unknown Aboriginal heritage conditions for the project. Noting that Tasmanian Aboriginal people were promised a truth and reconciliation art park and found out in the front page of the Mercury that they wouldn’t be getting that. Instead, they’d be getting an Aboriginal culturally informed zone, which is not described in any design documents, where there has been no apparent preliminary work. Certainly not funded.
That move was described by Professor Greg Lehman as ‘Black-cladding’, and he said that on behalf of the Palawa people. It was described by Lynn Mason, AM, who’s on the Tasmanian Planning Commission panel, as tokenism. That is, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation’s consultation with Aboriginal people had been tokenistic.
I would like to understand, Leader, what you can share with Council about the process of attempted consultation with Tasmanian Aboriginal people to date, why it has been apparently so half-hearted and unsuccessful. I would also like Council to be given the opportunity to understand the significance and the extent of the Aboriginal heritage on the site, and some information about who the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, on behalf of the government, intends to consult with in the development of Aboriginal heritage provisions.
Ms RATTRAY – The development of the Aboriginal culturally informed zone is part of the broader precinct and not part of this project.
There is a document called the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Public Hearing Technical Note that is published on the TPC website, as provided during the public hearing process. That is available and that relates to the Aboriginal community consultation and engagement. It’s dated 14 July 2025.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, the question was not answered satisfactorily. I requested some information for the Council on the significance and the extent of Aboriginal heritage on site. That information was not provided and it’s not good enough to refer members of this place to some website. That information should be put on the public record. I ask that the Leader for the government do that.
I go now to the agreement between the honourable member for Elwick and the government, which, with respect, is not worth the paper it’s written on. It provides no guarantees of anything. It also has a request in here under a number of alleged safeguards around design. It requires that the final design be agreed by the Design Quality and Integrity Review Panel, with particular reference given to visually respecting Sullivans Cove, the Cenotaph corridor, and Mount Wellington sightline.
I will pause at this minute to respectfully say the first and true name of the mountain is Kunanyi and it shows respect to the Palawa people of Tasmania to describe the mountain by its first and true name.
Will the Tasmanian Aboriginal community be consulted, for example, given the site is of such heritage significance, on the design of the project, in order to perhaps visually, at least, respect the sight line to Kunanyi?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the corporation has engaged with the Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations to seek initial guidance on the types of activities and development that they would like to see in the Aboriginal culturally informed zone and the multipurpose stadium. This consultation will help inform the master planning to ensure the proposed planning settings support these visions and consider options to support delivery.
I can add that the Aboriginal culturally –
Ms O’Connor – Can you translate that into English for us please, honourable Leader?
Ms RATTRAY – It looks pretty much English to me, honourable member. I can repeat it, but in the interest –
Ms O’Connor – Could you, please?
Ms RATTRAY – The corporation has engaged with Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations to seek initial guidance on the types of activity and development they would like to see in the Aboriginal culturally informed zone and the multipurpose stadium. This consultation will help inform master planning to ensure the proposed planning settings support these visions and consider options to support delivery.
I was going to add the Aboriginal culturally informed zone remains a critical part of Macquarie Point. The MPDC has worked with a range of Tasmanian Aboriginal people, groups, and consultants, including Aboriginal heritage officers, to help learn about the history of the site and to develop a culturally informed design.
I may have something else to add. The cultural assessment and the work to date is documented in the Project of State Significance application. I certainly can take on notice to table these documents, and I can seek leave to table the public hearing technical note right here and now if the honourable member wishes me to do so. I am happy to do so.
Madam Chair, I seek leave to table the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Public Hearing Technical Note.
Leave granted.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, thank you. Now I’m quite confused. Did I mishear you, honourable Leader, when you initially said the Aboriginal culturally informed zone is not part of the project, and then a short time ago I heard you say it’s a critical part. Which one is it?
Ms RATTRAY – It’s certainly a critical part, but the zone will be delivered in stage 2 of the precinct redevelopment following the stadium construction.
Ms WEBB – Following up on the answer there about the meetings and the consultations with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, it sounded like that might have happened some time ago if it’s detailed in the application for the POSS process, if that’s where we’re to look for the detail of that. I want to understand if there has been any recent interactions and ongoing work in that space. Perhaps something could be provided that outlines the dates and scheduling of that interaction, and then if there are plans now in place for ongoing interaction henceforth, could that be shared with us too?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the last significant round of consultation was outlined in the Project of State Significance (POSS) application. As I’ve already said, the zone will be delivered in stage 2 of the site development. Discussions with the Aboriginal people and consultants have occurred on a more ad hoc basis since that consultation round. I can assure honourable members that consultation will continue.
Ms WEBB – We all like a good assurance, but I also like dates. Since the publicly reported one in that application, and it might not be that you can bring it to us now, but I’d like a commitment to table it while we are still sitting as parliament: dates subsequent to that last public reporting of interactions, and then plans for dates going forward or what the timing would be.
In relation to this, noting what you said about the Aboriginal culturally informed zone not being part of the stadium project itself as stage 1, I’m reflecting on the fact that when we spoke to the TPC panel members in a hearing last week, we were told that it’s actually quite poor practice to corral First Nations input and involvement in a project into a particular area, and that it’s more standard practice – not even best practice, just standard practice, was the way it was described – to have it integrated into the whole development in some fashion.
What I would like to know is, with this stage 1 of the project, the stadium itself, what interactions are being had with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to incorporate the stories, the impact, the presence of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, the First Nations, here into this stadium project, or confirm that is not occurring?
Ms RATTRAY – A series of questions there. I certainly want to be able to provide that information. I commit to doing the best I can to provide as much information with regard to those questions as soon as I possibly can.
Ms Webb – That second question was not hard. Is it being incorporated into this project planning? Is there interaction on this?
Ms RATTRAY – I’ve already said it’s part of stage 2.
Ms WEBB – No, my question –
Madam CHAIR – Restate your question while the Leader’s on her feet.
Ms WEBB – My question related to the fact that in stage 1 we know best practice, in fact standard practice, is to incorporate interaction with First Nations people and their input into a whole project, not a corralled area. My question is, are we doing that? Is there any interaction with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community into the design and the planning of this stadium?
Madam CHAIR – Thank you. That’s fairly clear.
Ms WEBB – It’s a very clear question. It’s a yes or no in fact.
Ms RATTRAY – I actually have more than a yes, no.
Ms Webb – Great.
Ms RATTRAY – I will present what I have, Madam Chair, and if it’s not sufficient, I will commit to endeavour to get more information.
Consultation with the Aboriginal community, as noted, was at the whole of the site level and consultants who have supported the project include the Palawa people to provide advice to guide the stadium design and the master plan.
Furthermore, with regard to the Aboriginal cultural values and landscape, in its third representation, the MPDC notes that the following reports have been provided for assessment:
• the Draft Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project of State Significance Stadium Cultural and Landscape Values Assessment and prepared by Southern Archaeology, Colin Hughes, Caleb Pedder and Sarah Wilcox and that was dated the 28 August 2024;
• the draft proposed multi-purpose stadium at Macquarie Point, Lutrawita, Tasmania;
• the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report, which is referred to as the AHAR was 30 January 2025 and prepared again by Southern Archaeology, Colin Hughes, Caleb Pedder and Sarah Wilcox.
• there’s also an Appendix M in the Macquarie Point Stadium Historical Archaeological Sensitivity Report and Archaeological Method Statement and the draft IAR notes an assessment of the impact the project will have on cultural landscape values was not provided by MPDC in its final form. It does however acknowledge MPDC provided a draft Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report, again 30 January 2025 which provides a statement of cultural significance by Colin Hughes, a registered Aboriginal heritage officer and in its third representation. The MPDC notes that the assessment remains in draft form due to the importance of ongoing consultation.
Again, I will give that undertaking that if there is further information required, I will endeavour to provide that as soon as I possibly can.
Ms WEBB – Thank you, Leader. I didn’t ask about Aboriginal heritage assessments. I’m talking about design input into the stadium.
Madam CHAIR – The clause is considered.
Ms WEBB – Do I have another call?
Madam CHAIR – You do, member for Nelson, last call.
Ms WEBB – None of my questions were about Aboriginal heritage assessments. It’s a separate issue to having First Nations –
The sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above.
Madam CHAIR – Before we commence, we don’t have a four o’clock break because there’s no deputy leader here today; he’s been granted leave for the day. There are people at the table here who may need a small break – a comfort break, some might call it – during the afternoon. I will perhaps indicate to the Leader that around the usual break times we might seek leave to report progress, to take a break and then come back, just so everyone has a chance to fully participate. It’s not good to be holding on for too long. As a former midwife, I know these things.
Clause 7 –
Aboriginal heritage conditions
Madam CHAIR – Where we were was the honourable Leader was providing some information about Aboriginal heritage, which is the relevant section in clause 7. The member for Nelson was asking some questions about Aboriginal matters more broadly, but there may be a more appropriate spot to put that because this clause actually relates specifically to Aboriginal heritage. There are potentially other areas, but you have used your three calls.
Ms Webb – I think I was still on my feet.
Madam CHAIR – My apologies, you were on your feet. Sorry, I thought the Leader had stood. Do you want to clarify the question?
Ms WEBB – Yes. If there’s a more appropriate spot, I would appreciate it being pointed out so that I can follow it up there.
I’m asking that question of the Leader and her team, not of you, Madam Chair. I believe the question I was asking was relating to the fact that – yes, I wasn’t asking questions about Aboriginal heritage. I was asking questions about involvement with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community in the design of the stadium; so not just the culturally informed zone, which is in the second stage, and not what is covered by this order.
Have we actually incorporated involvement and respectful integration of input from the Tasmanian Aboriginal community into design of the stadium itself, how has that occurred, and what specific actions have have been undertaken for that? That was the gist of my question. I’m happy to hear if it would be better for me to repeat that at a different part of the order.
Madam CHAIR – That’s fine, if the Leader is happy and has an answer.
Ms RATTRAY – Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have an answer, and while we’re here we might as well, if the members are comfortable with that.
The stadium design includes culturally informed design elements, particularly the folded design in the facade. This pattern and design is inspired by the Tasmanian Aboriginal practice of weaving. This was proposed by Dean Greeno, a Palawa man, who provided advice and ideas as part of the concept design process. The original shoreline will also be reflected through paving and changes to the seating colour change.
Further stadium specific elements will be informed by advice and guidance by Tasmanian Aboriginal people, including through public art which will be at least 50 per cent by Palawa artists. The inclusion of Palawa art onsite builds on work to date including the immersive art container, which features the art of Palawa woman, Takira Simon Brown [OK]. This appointment was made through an expression-of-interest process. Takira’s work was selected by a panel of Palawa people and support from Arts Tasmania. The container also features oral art featuring Theresa Sainty speaking Palawa kani [OK], a statement of country [inaudible] onsite features work by Allan Mansell [OK] visually capturing the site as it was.
Engagement will continue on the delivery of the Aboriginal culturally informed zone as part of the broader precinct. This includes the initial plantings and form of the area after stadium construction is completed and on longer-term development of the area.
Clause 7 considered.
Clause 8 –
Heritage conditions
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause that relates to the heritage condition framework, which is laid out in schedule 4 of the order. I want to ask a preliminary set of questions about this provision and refer the Leader back to the final Integrated Assessment Report, which finds that the stadium will irrevocably change for the worse, in the opinion of the panel, the way in which the landscape and urban pattern is appreciated and understood; that it will have very significant adverse impacts on a number of places, the most significant being the Cenotaph, the Royal Engineers Building and buildings along Hunter Street; and the panel has concluded that the adverse effects are unacceptable and our heritage will be unacceptably diminished by the stadium’s presence and impacts.
The panel finds that these impacts are not able to be mitigated. Given that this provision requires that conditions be imposed in accordance with the Historic Cultural Heritage Act and that a heritage conservation management plan will be produced at some point, I gather, can the Leader explain whether there is anything in the proposed conditions or draft conditions or draft heritage conservation management plan that protects any heritage values along that area that was described in the final Integrated Assessment Report?
Ms RATTRAY – The government respects the commission’s concerns about the project’s impact on the heritage-listed buildings in Hunter Street, the Engineers Building and the Cenotaph. It also accepts that the stadium will change the city’s landscape, including views from key vantage points. Community sentiment will vary, but many see this as an opportunity to integrate modern architecture with Hobart’s heritage.
As part of the POSS process, the state developed a comprehensive set of permit conditions to manage the impact of the project on heritage. They were refined several times, including in response to the TPC’s final report. It is the government’s strong view, which was supported by expert evidence from Jim Gard’ner[OK] during the POSS hearings, that impacts on the cultural heritage of the surrounding sites can be appropriately mitigated.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Again, that was another completely inadequate answer to a question that was put, which exposes again the flimsiness of this order and the provisions within it. The Leader of government was not able to detail any heritage conservation plans or conditions that would actually protect heritage values down there. It is galling to hear the Leader say that the government respects the concerns around heritage, just as it was galling to hear members yesterday saying they respected veterans and they respect heritage, but they’re going to vote for this order anyway because it says something about your level of respect.
I put the question to you again: what steps, if any, through this provision and those in schedule 4 will do anything to protect those heritage values that are outlined in the final report not bland reassurances detail?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, there are detailed requirements in schedule 4 that seek to mitigate impacts of features such as signage and lighting on heritage values. Perhaps we can explore further when we consider schedule 4.
I’m happy to repeat, if the honourable member wishes so, in regard to the POSS process, the state developed a comprehensive set of permit conditions to manage the impact of the project on heritage. Also, a conservation management plan has been developed for the Goods Shed and it will be finalised in consultation with Heritage Tasmania before the Goods Shed is relocated. The Construction Environmental Management Plan will also inform the construction process, including stopping works during significant memorial days.
Ms O’CONNOR – Honourable Leader, does the government accept that, notwithstanding what is written in this flimsy ‘she’ll be right, mate’ order, that the impacts on the European built heritage along the waterfront from Sullivans Cove up through to the Cenotaph cannot be mitigated or ameliorated by any heritage conservation management plan or any of the conditions which are in very scant detail within this order? It is not possible. Can the government just confirm that it is not possible to mitigate a significant negative impact on values that make Hobart unlike any city anywhere in the world?
Ms RATTRAY – As I’ve already stated, the government accepts that the stadium will change the city’s landscape, including views from key vantage points, and community sentiment will vary, as I’ve already said. However, many see this as an opportunity to integrate modern architecture –
Ms O’Connor – Who’s many? Many who?
Ms RATTRAY – I’m sure there are many. – with modern architecture, with Hobart’s heritage. These are not flimsy and they are not ‘she’ll be right’. A conservation management plan has been developed for the Goods Shed and will be finalised in consultation with Heritage Tasmania before the Goods Shed is relocated. I’ve also talked about the Construction Environmental Management Plan, which will also inform the construction process including, as I have said, stopping works during significant memorial days.
Clause 8 considered.
Clause 9
Environmental conditions
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause on environmental conditions. In response to a previous question about the four year old environmental management plan, which was written to serve the previous consultant master plan for mixed-use development, the Leader for the government said there had been an update to the Environmental Management Plan on 1 December 2025.
Can you please provide the Council with the details of that updated plan? I have been to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation site and can find no sign of it. If it’s available there, would it be possible to table the updated environmental management plan for the Council to have a look at?
Ms RATTRAY – To commence the answer, and I may well have some additional information, the order includes a robust set of environmental conditions, as required by the independent Environment Protection Authority. It includes requirements around final remediation of the site, including the treatment and regulated disposal of contaminated soil, ensuring consistency with the current requirements of section 39(F) of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act 2012.
Throughout project delivery, a register must be maintained for environmental complaints, including details of when the complaint was received, subject matter of the complaint, and the type of harm, steps taken to resolve the complaint, and the outcome.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m not sure, honourable Leader, if you missed the last part of my last question, but I did ask if it would be possible to have a copy of the updated environmental management plan – which I note was updated just on Monday, interestingly – and table that updated environmental management plan, which I cannot find anywhere. That is me simply asking that question again and hoping that it is answered.
Can the government also, while I’m on my feet, confirm or explain what role the secretary of State Growth will have in any sort of input or approval of environmental conditions?
Ms RATTRAY – The Site Environmental Management Plan was updated on 1 December, just a few days ago. This included review by the environmental auditor, and it included reflecting the current construction noise management plan. The plan is not published. It can be shared with the Council, noting that there may be some redactions such as Aboriginal heritage sites.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Hobart, third call.
Ms O’CONNOR – I can’t speak for other Council members, but on behalf of the community of Hobart who I represent, I would like to see a copy of the updated environmental management plan. I respect that there may be redactions surrounding Aboriginal heritage, but that would be about the only redactions that could be justified in an environmental management plan which has been procured by a public authority like the Macquarie Point Development Corporation.
The request has been made for a copy of the updated plan. Could it be provided as soon as possible and, at the very latest, before we get into the provisions in the order around the environmental issues on that site?
Ms RATTRAY – In regard to providing a copy of the plan, there will need to be somebody who would need to review that, so it’s difficult to commit to providing it right here and now. Certainly, as soon as it is available, the government is happy to do so. The Department of State Growth will need to seek the agreement of the EPA for the environmental conditions in the construction environment management plans.
Ms WEBB – I’m a little confused, Madam Chair. Surely that’s information that’s useful for us when we are considering the conditions in this order. If the request has been put and those things can be made available to us, presumably if they’re up-to-date documentation that’s relevant to considering these conditions in this order, that’s an acceptable request. Probably an anticipatable request.
Madam CHAIR – It is a matter for the Leader how she answers the question. Anyway, over to the Leader.
Ms RATTRAY – As I’ve said, that document would need to be checked by somebody and we can’t commit to having that available right now. As soon as it is available, I give an undertaking that that will be made available.
Ms WEBB – Who does it need to get checked by specifically? Surely it would have been anticipated that a request would be made to see this document, or a form of this document, that is appropriate to be made available to us? Why didn’t the person who’s supposed to check it do that prior to today when we’re dealing with this order? Who is it and why wasn’t it anticipated that we would be interested to see this document if it’s the most up-to-date, informative document when we’re considering these conditions?
Ms O’Connor – Can it please be looked at before we get into the environmental provisions in the schedule 4?
Mr Edmunds – Does the member for Hobart have the call?
Ms O’Connor – Beg your pardon?
Madam CHAIR – Order. We won’t have a chat across the table. Did the member for Pembroke have a question?
Mr Edmunds – No, I just didn’t want to get in the way.
Madam CHAIR – Don’t get in the crossfire.
Ms O’Connor – No, still waiting for your questions.
Mr Edmunds – I’m enjoying you waiting for it, member for Hobart.
Madam CHAIR – Order. Let’s not have have chats across the Chamber. Member for Pembroke, I’m asking you not to have chats across the Chamber.
Ms RATTRAY – The Site Environment Management Plan is reviewed by the accredited environmental auditor, and the plan would not normally be published, but it is being reviewed by staff from the Macquarie Point Development Corporation to check for any sensitive or confidential information before sharing as soon as possible with the Council. It’s very difficult to anticipate every question.
Ms Webb – I don’t think so.
Ms RATTRAY – We’re absolutely doing our best for you to answer everything.
Madam CHAIR – But you’re committing to table the documents available? Am I correct in that?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes.
Madam CHAIR – You’ve committed to table documents in the form it’s available?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, as soon as we possibly can.
Ms WEBB – It’s entirely unacceptable that we’re going to come to schedules here with clauses in it that are highly relevant to this. There’s a public document that was part of the Site Environment Management Plan that was part of submissions to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, I believe, but that was an outdated one, was it?
Ms O’Connor – It’s from 2021, but it’s a living document.
Ms WEBB – It’s entirely able to be anticipated that the updated document would be expected to be provided for consideration here. Entirely anticipatable. Can we get it here in order for us to be able to look at it while we’re doing this scrutiny?
Ms RATTRAY – I can’t commit to having it prior to when we get to the schedule. I’ve given an undertaking that it will be available as soon as possible. With all due respect, had I known yesterday that this would be something that perhaps would be required –
Ms O’Connor – You might have thought ahead.
Ms Webb – It’s a key area.
Madam CHAIR – Order. Let the Leader answer the question.
Ms RATTRAY – we could well have made that available. Unfortunately, we can’t anticipate every question.
Clause 9 considered.
Clause 10 –
Construction conditions
Madam CHAIR – I have asked members, including one there who is smiling at me, to not talk and chat across the Chamber or interact. It makes it hard for me to hear, particularly, the questions and the responses and to keep an eye on how things are progressing, and to give everyone a chance to participate fairly and equally. If members could keep that in mind.
The member for Elwick has the call. I would prefer it if members didn’t interrupt so the questions can be clearly heard, and the answers can be provided in whatever form the Leader sees fit. That’s how it works. What’s acceptable to members or not, that’s not something you or I have any control over. I give the call to the member for Elwick.
Ms THOMAS – Madam Chair, in relation to clause 10:
Construction Conditions.
Unless otherwise specified in this order, the Project may proceed on the condition that the Proponent, and the Project, comply with the Building Act 2016.
My question is, can you confirm that a building permit will be required and whether the City of Hobart will be responsible for determining whether a building permit is issued? If this is the case, at what stage of the project will the building permit application be made and when is that expected to occur according to the current project timeline?
Ms RATTRAY – This section simply ensures that the order does not override the requirement to seek approvals under the Building Act 2016, and the Hobart City Council will approve permits under the Building Act as normal and before construction commences. This will be after the main contractor is appointed at the end of next year.
Clause 10 considered.
Madam CHAIR – Rather than have the Deputy Clerk come down like a yo-yo, it might be helpful if members can indicate if they have questions throughout this and ask him to put a group of items, 1, 2, 3, 4, or something like that. Items in the schedule.
Schedule 1 – General Conditions
Clause 1 –
Interpretation
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, ‘relevant document’ is defined:
relevant document includes, but is not limited to, a plan, strategy, review, report, specification, or other document.
Does this include drawings? Many of the later provisions require engineering and other technical drawings to be prepared, but it’s not clear they will need to be prepared by a suitably qualified person under this definition, and they are captured within the definition of relevant document.
Ms RATTRAY – The answer is yes.
Clause 1 considered.
Clause 2 A1
Ms THOMAS – My question is in relation to 2. A1(1)(b):
(1) If a condition specified in this order requires the approval of a relevant document, that relevant document must be –
(a) prepared by a suitably qualified person; and
(b) approved by the Secretary after consulting with the relevant regulator for the condition – [OK]
Can the Leader explain what does ‘consulting with’ mean, look like or include, and will the advice received during consultation be made publicly available?
Ms RATTRAY – In response to the member’s question, the consultation requirements for the purpose of this order, if the secretary is required under this order to consult with a person or agency in respect of a matter, the secretary is to give the person or agency a period of at least 28 days to respond to the secretary in respect of the matter. Or a shorter period to respond in respect to the matter as agreed between the secretary and the person or agency.
Further, if consultation with the relevant regulator is required under the conditions specified in the order, the secretary must take all reasonable steps to reach consensus with the relevant regulator on the condition within the consultation periods specified in this part as they relate to the condition.
Ms THOMAS – Thank you. My other question was, will the advice received during consultation be made publicly available and, further to that, will consultation be in the form of written documentation?
Ms RATTRAY – The order doesn’t specify written, so it may not be written. I will see if there’s anything further to add.
Further, Madam Chair, any decision within the order, the secretary is to establish and maintain a register of each approval or amendment or of a relevant document. The person or agency that approves or amends a relevant document in accordance with this order is to notify the secretary of the approval or the amendment.
Ms THOMAS – I understand that order does not specify that advice is to be written, which is why I would like the government’s intention clarified for the purposes of Hansard, for it to be written into Hansard what the government’s intent is to enable that to be clear. Tasmanians have seen and been affected significantly by fallouts of ‘he said, she said’ spats over the TT-Line saga and it would be terrible to see a similar thing occur in relation to anything related to this project.
I would like clarity on the government’s intention: is it the government’s intention that consultation, as described in the order, means there’s an expectation there will be a written exchange, a documented exchange between any relevant parties that are consulted?
Ms RATTRAY – It is the government’s expectation it will be written or, at the very least, a summary of what advice there is. That is certainly what the government’s intention is.
Ms Thomas – Good, no doubt the PAC will be asking for it.
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the part of the order which is, in some ways, the most worrying because it exposes the lack of oversight. The fact that only the secretary signs off after some consultation, which is vague in its purpose with relevant regulators. What happens if the relevant regulator says no during a consultation process. What is the upshot, if you like, of that? If the all-powerful secretary of State Growth, for example, consults with the Environment Protection Authority on a particular condition and the Environment Protection Authority says you can’t do that because it poses a risk to public health. Given the flimsiness of the assurances, we just had about whether or not these consultation processes would be written down or there would be a record anywhere of them, what happens during that consultation process, if a relevant regulator says no, you can’t do that? Where’s the obligation on the secretary to protect the public interest is the meta question.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the secretary is required to attempt to reach consensus with the regulator. That means to seek changes to a plan if required. The government has also committed that the secretary is to consult with the head of the State Service.
Ms O’CONNOR – Oh, big deal. I will just say, I hope that members who’ve already made-up their mind that they’re going to vote for this order, are paying close attention here, because we are seeing, very clearly, how weak this order is. There is no provision in here –
Madam CHAIR – There is no opportunity here to make another speech on this. It’s for questions.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m getting to my question.
Madam CHAIR – Well, let’s get to the question.
Ms O’CONNOR – There is no provision in here that provides any comfort. It shouldn’t provide comfort to us and it won’t provide comfort to Tasmanians when all that this provision provides for is that the secretary of State Growth is to consult, make all attempts to reach consensus, and whoop de doo, consult with the secretary of DPAC.
Madam CHAIR – So, your question on this clause is?
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Madam Chair. What happens when, as a result of that consultation, a relevant regulator says, ‘This condition you are proposing to implement and you are consulting me on will not protect public health,’ for example? What happens in the governance framework if a relevant regulator says to the secretary, ‘Don’t do that’?
Ms RATTRAY – It’s a normal process for someone to be in a position to approve plans. Often that is the general manager of a council, operating with significantly less oversight.
This is a highly transparent and accountable process. If a regulator recommends against approval of the plan, the plan will not be approved. Rather, further work will be required by the MPDC, Stadiums Tasmania, or the lead contractor.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Hobart, third call.
Ms O’CONNOR – I think that the Leader was referring more to a plan and the consultation on something like an environmental management plan or a construction environmental management plan. I’m talking about conditions, and consulting relevant regulators on conditions, because as we know in this order, most of the provisions and conditions give the power of approval to the secretary of State Growth.
If a relevant regulator says to the secretary, ‘That condition does not protect public health,’ what is the obligation on the secretary, then, to act in a way that protects public health and the public interest?
As this is my third and final call, I’ve got another question for you. In subclause (2)(b), it says:
(2) A relevant document approved in accordance with subclause (1) –
(a) forms part of the conditions specified in this order; and
(b) must be complied with under this order. [OK]
Honourable Leader, my question to you is: what happens if it’s not complied with under this order? We’ve used the word ‘must’ here in this order, but there’s no flow on to explain to us what happens if a relevant document that is approved in accordance with the subclause that we’ve just been in earlier is not complied with under this order. What happens? Do they get a little smack, a bit of a talking to?
Ms RATTRAY – All of the conditions of the order had been agreed with all relevant regulators, so the enforcement provisions under each relevant Act apply as if there was a permit issued under that Act, and I will repeat again that the secretary is required to attempt to reach consensus with the regulator.
The government has also committed that the secretary is to consult with the head of the state service, and furthermore, if a relevant document is not complied with, the action taken will be informed by advice from the regulator, and this would require works to stop or require further information, and it will depend on the specific matters.
Clause 2 considered.
Clause 3 considered.
Clause 4 A3
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the provision which allows for an exception of the requirement to publish a relevant document requirement that’s placed on the secretary of State Growth. Can the Leader for government provide some examples of when it might be not in the public interest to publish a relevant document for projects Tasmanians will pay for through their noses for a generation or more? Why is there a provision in this clause that allows the secretary not to release, not to publish a relevant document because it may cause damage to the commercial interests of a person?
Perhaps the Leader’s advisers at the table could detail who makes the assessment of whether the commercial interests of a person are potentially damaged to the extent that you withhold information which should be made public. Is that the secretary who makes the determination of a commercial interest that should be prioritised over the public interest, or is it the minister or is it Macquarie Point Development Corporation? Who makes that decision to prioritise commercial interests over the public interest in the publication of relevant documents?
Ms RATTRAY – All relevant documents that are approved in accordance with conditions of the order must be made publicly available and, as has been stated, except for if it will create a safety risk to persons, property or the environment, or if it has the potential to damage a person’s commercial interests.
For example, parts of the full emergency plan won’t be made publicly available as this may reveal confidential security information about the stadium, and if documents contain commercial in confidence information, then the government will seek to redact those parts only to ensure that the document itself can still be published, and if required, documents can also be provided to the pack confidentially and I will get an answer to who makes the decision.
The regulator holding the relevant document would need to make the decision. So the regulator holding the relevant document would need to make that decision.
Ms O’CONNOR – Invariably it will be State Growth. Thank you. Confirming that principally that determination under this order will be made by the secretary of State Growth and occasionally it may be made by another regulator such as the Environmental Protection Authority; is that correct?
Ms RATTRAY – As I’ve said, the regulator holding the relevant document would need to make the decision, but outside of the operation of this order, these documents could also be sought under right to information, at which time an RTI officer would need to make a decision on relevant exemptions, as some documents may contain, as we’ve said, commercial interests and these protections are important to ensure appropriate expertise can be procured. As an example, the cost plan includes specific line items that reflect commercial IP of the quantity surveyor.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I know this is my third speak. While noting that the Leader for the government has suggested if members of the public want to get hold of a copy of a relevant document that’s been withheld on the basis of these provisions, they will need to seek them through right to information – that’s insulting, it’s very difficult to get information through right to information. Will there be any requirement on a relevant regulator to provide reasons, any written record of their decisions, to withhold a relevant document on the basis that it may create a risk to security or safety of the persons, property or the environment or cause damage to the commercial interests of a person?
Will there be any line of sight, any transparency whatsoever to these decisions which are being made by regulators including, for example, the secretary of State Growth, to withhold relevant documents? At the moment, under this provision, there’s nothing. There’s no requirement for reasons. There’s not even a nod to transparency. Why not?
Ms RATTRAY – This provision is a positive, active disclosure style provision that goes well beyond RTI, creating a positive obligation to release documents publicly. This significantly improves transparency, and condition A4 requires a register to be kept of every approval. That register will be tabled in parliament each quarter.
Ms WEBB – For the avoidance of doubt, Madam Chair, you mentioned the register in A4 and the register will include both relevant documents that have been made publicly available, but also relevant documents specified as not being made publicly available but existing, so that we know all the relevant documents that have been produced and approved. I am thinking of this in terms of RTI, because when you RTI a series of documents, even the ones that are not going to be provided to you under a relevant RTI exemption, still should be in a list, in a schedule of documents specifying that they will not be provided but you know that they exist.
I want to clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that any such register of these documents will include identification of both the ones shared publicly and also the ones that won’t be shared publicly, but do exist, and the basis on which they are not being shared publicly.
Ms RATTRAY – That’s correct, yes. It includes every approval, which includes approval of documents not released publicly.
Ms Webb – And the reason for their non release?
Ms O’Connor – There’s nothing explicit in here that says there needs to be a reason.
Ms Webb – But it could be one of the two things.
Ms O’Connor – Yes.
Ms RATTRAY – And it will include the reasons why that decision was made.
Clause 4 considered.
Clause 5 considered.
Clause 6 A5
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I want to note, with disappointment, that there isn’t in the Chamber now, on this most significant of decisions as we scrutinise the order, any government member or minister, and there isn’t any member of the Labor Party in this place. I think that is noteworthy and highly regrettable.
Madam CHAIR – I will take that as an observation. Do you have a question?
Ms O’CONNOR – This is A6 and it relates, in part, to the uses of the stadium. My question on this relates to evacuation planning and wanting to understand whether either the Special Event Management Plan or the Special Event Transport Management Plan will contain any provisions for the safe evacuation from the stadium site in the event of an emergency, given that this provides that crowds for a concert, for example, can’t exceed 31,500, or in any other case, 24,500.
I understand that there’s likely to be other relevant areas that relate to evacuation planning, but given that the Treasurer said last week in Estimates that the investment in the Davey Street pedestrian upgrades won’t be happening, will either of those plans contain provisions that allow for the safe evacuation for patrons from the stadium in the event of an emergency, given what we know from the TPC about it being a very tightly constrained site hemmed in by a major road in Davey St?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, the Special Event Management Plan will certainly do that.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Can I ask why there’s nothing in this provision? It describes the Special Event Management Plan – meaning a plan that’s been prepared in respect to an event – approved as a special event, under subclause (3)(a): ‘contains all the matters required to be included in the Event Management Plan, under condition D7’.
I’m not at D7 yet; I haven’t looked at it for a few days. Do those conditions in D7 provide a requirement that there be a safe evacuation and egress plan from the stadium as part of the Special Event Management Plan?
Ms RATTRAY – Under 41. D7, to the event management plan: (2)(b) patron arrival and departure plans have to be provided, and (d) is access and coordination for emergency responders. So, they’re covered in that particular area.
Ms O’CONNOR – I want to make absolutely sure that they are covered in that particular area. In the Leader’s answer, you talked about access for emergency first responders, but I didn’t hear any reference to an evacuation plan that keeps people safe should something happen at the stadium. I want to be absolutely clear on the public record, for the people who may be watching, that there will be a detailed evacuation plan in the Special Event Management Plan that is prepared under this provision.
Ms RATTRAY – For the completeness to the member’s question, under (b) it’s ‘patron arrival and departure plans’, which includes an evacuation plan.
Clause 6 considered.
Clause 7 A6
Mr GAFFNEY – Madam Chair, I want some clarification here. I know that some of these come further along in G12. I have two questions.
One: take the TSO, for example – it’s to do with the construction. If for example, this is the plan and somehow there’s a construction delay or whatever with the materials, and then it comes up later that they may have to change their plans because there’s been a delay and they have to hasten their building or their construction work. That’s the same with some of the other groups there.
My second question is about Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra rehearsals. I attended a rehearsal up there the other day and it’s pretty intense. They wouldn’t want to have construction going on outside because there’s been a delay. I want to know how that works, and I’ll raise it again in D12. Any information about that would be helpful. Thank you.
Ms RATTRAY – The MOU between the TSO and Macquarie Point Development Corporation and Stadiums Tasmania will cover that. There’s an existing established process of TSO sharing their forward schedule, including rehearsals and concerts with the Macquarie Point Development Corporation. An agreed list of locations has been established between the two organisations to support consistent monitoring and data sharing.
The agreement currently being finalised confirms these locations and that both major concerts held by the TSO and rehearsals for that program of concerts are identified as sensitive noise events. For these sensitive noise events, coordination for scheduling will occur. The analysis jointly undertaken has confirmed that when operational, only major concerts present a potential noise risk, which is a dull, low-frequency noise.
Stadiums Tasmania will notify the TSO when major concerts are planned to enable any scheduling risks to be managed, and these types of events are planned in advance. During the construction stage, the agreed locations for noise and vibration monitoring will ensure live monitoring captures any unexpected noise impacts, to inform programming of works and event scheduling and to enable the timing and types of works planned to be assessed. The order requires consultation with the TSO before finalising noise-related plans. Finally, the agreement furthers this to establish a coordination committee to ensure regular communication, planning and monitoring continues.
Ms WEBB – I’m interested in what’s the trigger for a noise management plan being required in terms of if there’s an activity that’s going to have, say, a minimum decibel level or something like that, that becomes the threshold that then means a noise management plan must be put in place and consulted in that way with those stakeholders. What are the arrangements around that minimum trigger?
Ms RATTRAY – A plan will be required before commencing works and the agreement includes a commitment to work collaboratively to minimise any conflict between construction involving high levels of noise and vibration or concerts involving high levels of noise and noise sensitive events for the TSO. Under the draft agreement, noise-sensitive events are defined as concerts and recordings conducted in the Federation Concert Hall, national training programs and ticketed performances conducted in the studio, and rehearsals in the studio for special events, or concerts and commission recordings held in the Federation Concert Hall.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, is the Council able to have a look at the draft MOU between the proponent and the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra? That is something I believe we should be able to see and to understand, noting the government has tried to buy off the TSO because of the profound and impossible to be managed impacts on the TSO –
Madam CHAIR – I urge the member not to impugn improper motives, please.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, but I think that’s a point that’s worth making. Is that MOU with the TSO available? Can the Leader for the government provide any detail on what’s in the MOU? In terms of consultation generally, which this provision provides for, I note that the Hotel Grand Chancellor is not included in the list of local organisations that are to be consulted. Nor, for example, is the RSL. Why is the Grand Chancellor not within the consultation groups?
Also, will any of these organisations have any sort of sway at all in the development of construction environmental management plans and operational noise management plans? Would they get any sort of actual authority or any veto power? We would like to understand the nature of the consultation with those affected parties in respect to the list of plans. How will their feedback be adopted into those plans and will they be able to shape the provisions?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair. The TSO has sought assistance from the state government to fund upgrades to the Federation Concert Hall and associated buildings to reduce the impact of external noise on their operations, including noises associated with the construction and operation of the stadium.
The Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of State Growth, Stadiums Tasmania, and the MPDC have been working with the TSO on an agreement that details how the construction and operation of the stadium will be managed to minimise any impacts on the operation of the TSO and the stadium. This agreement is expected to be submitted to the boards of Stadiums Tasmania, the MPDC, and the TSO in coming weeks. It is not finalised as yet, and other elements of the draft agreement include the establishment of a coordination committee to exchange information in respect to upcoming activities or events concerning the stadium and the concert hall.
That committee will also discuss how to coordinate the activities and events in a manner that gives effect to the objective stated in clause 3 and raise and discuss and resolve any issues that may arise. The agreement complements the requirements in the order to manage the construction and operation of the stadium in a way that avoids conflicts with the operations of the TSO. This includes limitations on the maximum volume of concerts, the PA system, sirens, and general noise levels. The list is a minimum of what’s required.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I did ask – I was getting a little frustrated. I did ask if that draft MOU is something that Council could have a look at. It sounds like there’s a resistance to that. Will the final MOU with the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra be a public document?
Ms RATTRAY – There would be a need for an agreement by the parties and that can be sought for releasing the deed publicly once finalised. The listed parties are a minimum and it’s anticipated other parties will be consulted as relevant to the stage of works. For information it is noted that the TSO is a tenant of the Hotel Grand Chancellor and will be involved in any relevant discussions.
Clause 7 considered.
Clause 8 considered.
Clause 9 – A8
Ms O’CONNOR – This establishes the design, quality and integrity review panel.
Madam CHAIR – Excuse me, that’s clause 10.
Ms O’CONNOR – I do have a question on clause 9. This is about the Noise Management Procedures Manual which was published by the EPA in July 2009. Since the order was drafted, have there been any changes to a 16-year-old document? Can the Leader for government provide any information on what changes are likely to be made to the noise measurement procedures manual and whether or not they will contain specific decibelage as we see in the conditions in the schedules in the back?
Ms RATTRAY – It is an EPA document and the government’s not aware of any changes or proposed changes.
Clause 9 considered.
Clause 10 – A9
Ms O’CONNOR – Establishing the Design Quality and Integrity Review Panel seems to the Greens at least to be completely pointless when clause 6(c) provides for the proponent to simply not make the change to the plan as suggested if they explain it. What’s the point? It strikes us that there is nothing to enforce the decisions of the panel. Can the Leader for government confirm this?
Ms RATTRAY – The reason why this was included was this was proposed by the TPC panel.
Ms O’CONNOR – That wasn’t, with respect, the question. The question is, regardless of whether this is something the TPC recommended because they made a suite of recommendations that the government has ignored. Clause 6(c) in here provides for the proponent, that is the government, to simply not make the change to the plan that’s been suggested by the panel, if they’re able to explain it. We can all explain many things.
What is the point and what is the actual authority of this panel? There is nothing in this provision to provide the panel with any actual authority or genuine influence over the decisions that will be made ultimately by the secretary.
Ms RATTRAY – Further to my previous response on this being part of the TPC panel proposal, this panel will be treated like a government board with experienced personnel appointed to the panel to ensure the panel can carry out its activities as required by the order.
The panel is independent and provides written feedback directly to the proponent. Clause 10.A9(6) notes that
If the Design Quality and Integrity Review Panel provides written feedback to the Proponent under subclause (5) in respect of a plan and suggests changes to the plan, the Proponent must make a publicly available statement that specifies –
(a) each change proposed by the panel; and
(b) whether the Proponent intends to make the change to the plan as suggested; and
(c) if the Proponent does not intend to make the change to the plan as suggested, the reasons why the Proponent does not intend to change the plan.
Through this transparency, members of the public and the parliament will be able to validate this process.
Ms WEBB – I want to be very careful that we don’t do any verballing of the TPC panel in this process because I believe that’s what has happened habitually from the government since they put out their report.
Since the Leader has mentioned the TPC panel apparently proposing this, let’s get it on the record from the government’s perspective exactly where that is proposed and clarify whether the TPC panel actually reviewed this clause here and provided that, yes, that’s what they were suggesting or endorsing if the government is saying that they did. I want to get that very firmly and clearly on the record, just to make sure that we’re not verballing anybody.
Ms RATTRAY – I have a correction to make, if I might, in regard to a previous answer around the Noise Measurement Procedures Manual published by the EPA in July 2009. That has been updated in July 2025 and is published on the EPA website. Apologies for that.
It was a suggestion of Shelley Penn’s during the public hearings when the panel was considering the draft order, and the proponent included the panel in the final draft order submitted to the TPC. It was considered as a positive and constructive suggestion from Ms Penn. Hope that clarifies.
Ms WEBB – To follow up on that, did the TPC panel review this specific clause and endorse this specific clause, or just the concept of a design, quality and integrity review panel?
Ms RATTRAY – The panel doesn’t have a role in this particular area. It would certainly be up to the panel whether they endorse that, but again, it was a suggestion, and it was considered as a positive and constructive suggestion from Ms Penn.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Nelson, third call.
Ms WEBB – Just to clarify, they didn’t endorse this? Just to 100 per cent clarify: the TPC panel has not specifically endorsed this clause? They’ve endorsed the concept, but not this clause, as part of their considerations?
Ms RATTRAY – For completeness, it is included in the order attached to their final report, as Ms Penn suggested.
Ms THOMAS – I note that the final order was changed from the draft to include the statement that specifies any changes made, and if changes aren’t made, the reasons why are publicly available and based on feedback are provided that that be included. I appreciate that, but I wonder if you can clarify where that information will be published and in what timeframe?
Ms RATTRAY – It will be made available on the Department of State Growth’s website as soon as practicable.
Clause 10 considered.
Clause 11 considered.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, given your earlier suggestion, I move –
That the Committee report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Leave granted.
Progress reported.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
[4.20 p.m.]
Ms RATTRAY (McIntyre – Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council) – Mr President, I move –
That the sitting be suspended until the ringing of the division bells.
This is in order to take a break.
The Committee suspended from 4.20 p.m. to 4.32 p.m.
STATE POLICIES AND PROJECTS (MACQUARIE POINT PRECINCT) ORDER 2025 (No. 49)
In Committee
Resumed from above.
Schedule 1 –
Clause 12 – AA1
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the part of the order that relates to consultation requirements and the all powerful secretary of State Growth, who is required:
… under this order, to consult with a person or agency in respect of a matter, the Secretary is to give the person or agency –
(a) a period of at least 28 days to respond to the Secretary in respect of the matter; or
(b) such shorter period to respond in respect of the matter as agreed between the Secretary and the person or agency.
Again, this raises governance questions because we’ve already established that the secretary is not required to reach consensus with anyone that he consults simply to consult; and that allows risk where the secretary may make a decision or approve something contrary to advice because he’s not required to accept the advice. Can the Leader for the government confirm that under the State Policies and Projects Act if the secretary approves something under this order and it turns out to be a big mistake that that is not an action taken that is judicially reviewable?
Ms RATTRAY – The secretary must take all reasonable steps to reach consensus, which already has been placed on the record, and it is correct that it is not judicially reviewable.
Clause 12 considered.
Clause 13 considered.
Clause 14 – AA3
Ms O’CONNOR – For the avoidance of doubt, does this provision require the secretary to actually reach consensus with a relevant regulator I know we’ve more or less established this and certainly I’ve asserted it or just take steps to reach consensus? What happens if consensus cannot be reached? In the Greens, for example, we go to a vote.
Ms RATTRAY – As we’ve already stated, the secretary must take all reasonable steps to reach consensus and if that is not achievable, then the secretary must go back to the regulator to then go to the MPDC, in order to reach that consensus. There may be more information required, whatever that might look like.
Ms O’CONNOR – So a question that is begged throughout this order, and also in this provision is: who’s watching the secretary? Where is the oversight of the secretary, apart from what the secretary might report, for example, at their regular weekly meeting with the minister? Is the secretary reporting to anyone else but their minister? How can Tasmanians be sure, I guess is the question, that the secretary in these provisions is doing all the things that they’re required to do. Who’s watching the secretary?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, a copy of the governance framework has been provided to honourable members and the secretary of the Department of State Growth and other state regulators are accountable to act in accordance with the State Service Act 2000.
In addition, the regulators will be accountable to parliament for the use of their powers and this provides a pathway; should parliament be concerned about the execution of these powers, it can examine them through established or new parliamentary processes.
A probity adviser will be reporting on the integrity of the processes followed in making decisions under the order.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, we still haven’t established that the all-powerful secretary of State Growth will be reporting to anyone about the decisions that they’ve made under this order or the approvals that they’ve made under this order. I understand how government works. I understand that secretaries of agencies report to their ministers.
Is it intended within this order that the secretary reports to the minister about the decisions and approvals that they’ve made under this order, or do they report to the Steering Committee, which is set up under the AFL contract, or do they report to the Oversight Committee, which has been established subsequent to the contract being signed? Who is the secretary reporting to in relation to approvals, decisions, et cetera, under this order?
I note that there was a government assurance and oversight framework released late last Friday afternoon. Most Tasmanians won’t have had a chance to read that, so it’s not enough to say there’s something in that framework and vaguely point us in that direction. People are watching this. Can the Leader for the government explain where is the accountability for the secretary? It’s not enough to say they’re bound by the State Service Act.
Madam CHAIR – Stick with the question. Too much commentary, just stick to the question.
Ms O’CONNOR – Context is important too, but yes, I hear you.
Madam CHAIR – You’ve given the context. I’ve asked you to put the question.
Ms O’CONNOR – Who are they reporting to? Where’s the accountability?
Mr Duigan – There’s no question there.
Ms O’Connor – Well, it is a question; it’s an obvious question.
Madam CHAIR – Order, order. I ask members not to carry on across the Chamber.
Ms RATTRAY – The reason for mentioning the governance framework was that it was provided to members last Wednesday and it’s an important part of the project. Further, the secretary of State Growth will consult with the secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and key decisions will be considered by the Oversight Committee.
Clause 14 considered.
Clause 15 – B1
Mr GAFFNEY – I noticed that part 4, clauses 15 to 29 are to do with staging and design approval, so my question may come up a bit later, but I will ask it now so I don’t miss it.
If, for example, somebody has an idea or there’s a design that wants to come into the overall design, it’s pretty difficult on the big maps to find out. For example, outside the Aussie Open they have a big screen, so if there’s an overflow and there’s too many people, people can sit out there and watch that. Here, with the intense take-up of the participation, if the Tassie team is going to play Richmond or Collingwood – probably not North Melbourne –
Madam CHAIR – Or North Melbourne, they will be good by then.
Mr GAFFNEY – It could be a full house and people still want to go and experience. Is there an area outside the stadium that has a big screen, that people can congregate, hear the noise, hear the sounds, all that sort of thing? It doesn’t have to be roofed, but they could bring their umbrellas and that sort of thing. I’d like to know if there is capacity within this design for that sort of feature. Has that feature been thought about?
Ms RATTRAY – The plaza in front of gate 1 in the south east and gate 4 in the north east has capacity for crowds to assemble and activate. There are also locations nearby, if the crowds are sufficient, such as the Regatta grounds and PW1.
Mr GAFFNEY – What capacity would be able to sit outside gate 1, for example? What size is that area? Is it in the thinking of the Devils’ strategic plan, the design, to be able to have the capacity for a large screen for those who can’t get into the game because it’s full or they can’t afford to get in?
Ms RATTRAY – It’s not absolutely known what the capacity is outside. We’d have to take that question on notice, if the member is agreeable. There’s a provision for a screen, but it’s not included in the proposal at this point in time.
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the provision that provides for staging and design approvals. Can the Leader for the government explain why the only relevant regulator who would be consulted on these matters is the Environment Protection Authority?
There are provisions in here regarding ensuring excavations do not extend below the water table into the heavy metal contaminated sediments of the Derwent – that’s my add on, obviously – and relates to material excavated that remains on site. What is the mitigation plan for excavated materials that are stored on site, given that the environmental management plan is four years old, except for the update, I think, around noise provisions on 1 December? Where is the enforcement authority within this provision? It allows here for remediation work carried out in accordance with the certificate issued under section 39(F) of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act 2012.
This might be a good opportunity for the proponent to confirm exactly what the volume is of contaminated soils. As members know, we were told in Estimates by Macquarie Point Development Corporations, it’s about 130,000 cubic metres. Later on when we moved, speaking to the Environment Protection Authority, they suggested it was up to 220,000 tonnes. As we know, a cubic metre equals about 1.1 tonnes, so we’ve been criticised for saying that.
What exactly is the volume according to the Environment Protection Authority that is assessed potentially to be on the site? What kind of enforcement provisions are there around these preparatory works which, we should acknowledge, according to the proponent’s own outdated environmental management plan potentially poses a threat to public health?
Ms RATTRAY – That is a minimum requirement, and the secretary would consult with other stakeholders as required. Excavated materials are managed in keeping with the environmental auditor review and the Site Environment Management Plan. To convert soil from cubic metres to tonnes it is multiplied by 1.7, and the conversion from volume to weight depends on the material. Both the MPDC and the EPA use 1.7 for soil.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will go back to the Estimates transcript and get some real clarity here, hopefully. I asked the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, what was the likely volume of contaminated soils. I was told it’s about 130,000 cubic metres. Then, yesterday, I asked the Director of the EPA, ‘Can you confirm this?’ Ms Beach said 100,000 cubic metres. Ms Murdoch said it’s 130,000 to 220,000 tonnes. That matches with our table here. I said, ‘I think a cubic metre is sort of a tonne,’ and the director said, ‘Yes, that’s about right’. I said, ‘So 130,000 to 220,000 possibly is the range of volume?’. ‘Yes,’ Ms Murdoch said.
Would it be possible to see the Environment Protection Authority’s table that details its understanding of the contaminants on site? Can we have a better understanding of how that material, through the staging process of this project – given that it contains mercury, arsenic, lead, asbestos, cyanide, confirmed by the government’s own environmental management plan from 2021 – what is the plan for the safe storage of those materials during the staging process on the site given that they are toxic soils?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the cubic metre is volume tonne and tonnes is a measure of weight. We could certainly source a –
Madam CHAIR – Equation?
Ms RATTRAY – From the EPA for the member at a later time.
Madam CHAIR – Are you getting more information, Leader?
Ms RATTRAY – No.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thanks, Madam Chair. I asked a question of really significant public interest of the Leader for the government about the treatment of contaminated soils on the site.
Madam CHAIR – Could you repeat the question?
Ms O’CONNOR – The question is, as I just said, what is the plan? Where is it written? What kind of assurance can the proponent provide that, during this stage in the process, which is preliminary to construction, that there will be a safe treatment of those contaminated soils? Where is it written? How can it be understood?
I did also ask a question which hasn’t been answered, about enforcement. Under these provisions, who would enforce the control of material excavated on site?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I will make a start and and I expect I will have some additional information.
Contaminated material would be managed through disposal at certified waste depots. Level 3 material, approximately 10 per cent of the 22,000 tonnes will be taken to the Copping C-cell, and further;
7. Re1
Development of all or any part of Project land must not occur until an accredited environmental auditor has certified that the remediation of that part of Project land has occurred to a standard that is satisfactory for the purposes of the Project.
8. Re2
The Director of the EPA may only accredit a person as an environmental auditor, under this order, for the purpose of the Project if the Director of the EPA is satisfied that the person has the necessary qualifications and experience to determine whether the remediation of Project land has occurred to a standard that is satisfactory for the purposes of the Project.
Ms O’Connor – Does that mean the EPA is the enforcement agency?
Ms RATTRAY – We have confirmed the EPA uses a conversion rate of one cubic metre as equal to 1.7 tonnes for soil, so that’s a clarification there. The removal of material will be documented in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.
Ms O’Connor – Is the EPA the enforcement body?
Ms RATTRAY – I believe the answer is yes, but I will confirm and there may be some additional words that go with that. I will provide as much information as absolutely possible.
As indicated yes. For further clarity, the EPA retains all of its powers under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act to monitor and enforce environmental protection standards.
Clause 15 considered.
Clause 16 considered.
Clause 17 – B3
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the public domain and landscaping works. The Tasmanian Planning Commission was pretty damning in its report on the lack of landscaping in what has been submitted so far, it said –
Madam CHAIR – I think that’s 18 you’re on?
Ms O’CONNOR – B3?
Ms Webb – No, it’s 17.
Madam CHAIR – Sorry, I was looking at the next one too.
Ms O’CONNOR – The TPC said:
The lack of soft landscaping will reduce the general amenity of the site. Soft landscaping not only contributes to a site’s visual appeal but also protects the area from elements such as wind and rain. It can reduce urban heat island effects and support environmental sustainability. Soft landscaping can also create human scaled spaces for respite and minor landmarks that can create meaning/place connection. This could improve orientation and wayfinding in the area.
Will the public domain and landscaping plan be required to address these issues?
Ms RATTRAY – The plans will be considered by the Design Quality and Integrity Review Panel.
Ms O’CONNOR – So the answer is no or uncertain. Previously in the order we know that the Design Quality and Integrity Review Panel’s advice can be ignored. Is it the government’s intention that the public domain and landscaping plan will be required to address the issues raised by the TPC in their final report? The panel also found the current public space design surrounding the stadium does not ‘enable a sense of safety, ease of access and use or enjoyment’.
Will the public domain and landscaping plan require that the public spaces surrounding the stadium be, at a minimum, safe? We heard from the panel last Thursday about concerns around the safety, particularly of women and other vulnerable people, at a site that is hemmed in and has plenty of dark corners. Will that plan about the public spaces around the stadium be, at a minimum, safe for people to move all around that stadium given the independent expert advice to us?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the Mac Point site connects to the city and to the Queen’s Domain and public open space. The landscape plan will include plantings around the site and trees in the plaza area. The Aboriginal culturally informed zone is anticipated to be a parkland based on consultation to date.
Ms O’Connor – No.
Ms RATTRAY – I’m just getting some more information. Further, Madam Chair, the panel will be made aware of the views of the TPC Panel and will provide advice on matters such as crime prevention through environmental design, which is a mandatory part of the plan under subclause (h).
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, I’m interested in exactly what the Leader has ended on there, because I was looking at subclause (h) about how the plan:
must include –
(h) crime prevention through environmental design;
What does that mean, must include that? Is there a fixed set of principles, for example, or is there a particular international standard? When it said it ‘must include’ that, what are the particulars that must be included in relation to that?
Ms RATTRAY – There are established practices that encourage safety and crime prevention through environmental design features such as lighting. There have been a number of safety in design workshops held in the current design process and additionally the landscape plans include lighting and CCTV to provide additional security. The circulation spaces have been designed to support the movement of large crowds and to provide at least eight metres of external concourse. The design process has included consultation with police and other emergency services.
Ms WEBB – I see there that in that extensive list of what must be included in the public domain and landscaping plan, all those other things are mentioned separately in their own subclauses, lighting and public safety and things, but crime prevention through environmental design is specified. I wanted to clarify there’s not some particular standard. That can be a simple yes or no. Is there a particular set of principles or standard or agreed guide on that?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, we’re not able to provide that. That would be professional advice, but I can add this is at the development application stage. The issuing of a planning permit as with any DA, a lot of the details that is being requested you are required will be determined through the next stage of preparing the plans.
Ms WEBB – There’s a little bit of confusion here. I’m not asking for the details of what would be in the plan. That’s fine. I’m asking for, if we were to be assessing the public domain and landscaping plan that’s prepared here under B3, if we were to look at it and then we were to check against this list of (a) through to (m) of all the things that must be in it, and we’ve got 2(h) in that list, crime prevention through environmental design.
How would we know when we could tick that off given that the others particular things you mentioned like lighting, that’s a separate item. We tick off at one of the other ones. Public safety is mentioned in one of the other ones; security is mentioned in one of the other ones. We tick all those things off against other things in that (a) to (m) list, but when we get to (h), how do we know we can tick it off?
Is there a particular thing you can point us to that says, yes, we’ve met that inclusion that must happen in the plan? I don’t want the details of it. I just want to know how we’ll know.
Ms RATTRAY – There are standards. Professional advice would be sought, including from police and how they should be applied in the approval of this plan and through engagement with security and landscape architects and by consulting police who are the experts when it comes to this matter.
Clause 17 considered.
Clause 18 considered.
Clause 19 and 20 considered.
Clause 21 – B7
Ms O’CONNOR – The all-powerful secretary of State Growth is able to approve a fully dimensional and scaled plan for a stage of works so long as they consult with the director of the Environment Protection Authority before the works on that stage commence.
The governance issue with this order, of course, is that the secretary of State Growth is able to approve a whole lot of plans and conditions. It is not feasible that the secretary of State Growth would have the knowledge, the expertise to make informed decisions and given that there’s no penalty provisions in this order, there’s no prospect of judicial review. The idea that they have to seek, must seek consensus is an operationally redundant part of this order.
What is the government’s expectation of the qualifications of the secretary, the capacity of the secretary to make these big decisions and have an impact on public safety and public health, given that he is the secretary of a government department. He’s not a public health expert, he’s not an engineer, he is not a remediation expert.
Does the government have any concerns at all about the level of responsibility they’re placing on the shoulders of the secretary of State Growth? Why haven’t penalty provisions, for example, been put in here in instances where there’s been a failure to uphold a public duty?
Ms RATTRAY – The secretary would seek advice from experts, and the process for making sound decisions under the order would be subject to consideration by the probity adviser. The role of the secretary is similar to the role of the general manager of a planning authority in other planning approvals. The penalties for enforcement under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and other acts apply.
Ms O’CONNOR – There’s nothing here in this order or in this provision that requires the secretary today to take advice from any expert. All we can go on is what is before us. There’s no apparent requirement in this order on any of these powers that we are giving to a bureaucrat. There is no requirement in here that they must take advice from experts. Perhaps the Leader for government could point Council to where it says in this order, in any part that they must take advice from experts before approving a plan or a condition.
Ms RATTRAY – Point of clarification, if I might. I said the secretary would seek advice from experts, so I wanted to clarify that: would. If I said ‘could’ I apologise, I should have said ‘would’, but I thought I did say would.
[Ms RATTRAY – Furthermore, a secretary is required to act with care and diligence in the course of their state service employment, and this includes seeking expert input on decision-making in areas where they do not hold the expertise.
Ms O’CONNOR – We’ve just confirmed there that there is an assumption that the secretary would seek advice if they didn’t have the knowledge or the expertise to make an informed and safe decision on a condition or a plan under this order. I would have thought that’s a brave assumption given what we understand about human nature. Why isn’t there a requirement in here that if there is any doubt in the secretary’s mind about a particular condition or plan that he or she is being asked to approve, that he must seek expert advice?
Ms RATTRAY – Under the State Service Act 2000, section 9 – The State Service Code of Conduct:
An employee must act with care and diligence in the course of State Service employment.
I want to add as well, if I might, I clearly read out the last time that a secretary is required to act with care and diligence.
Clause 21 considered.
Clause 22 – B8
Ms WEBB – I’m not sure if this is the appropriate spot for this. I’m looking at clause 22 B8(a)(iv), in relation to:
(iv) an approved Vehicle Access and Car Parking Design required under condition B9;
The question I have is about car parking and, in particular, disability car parking on site. I’m quite interested to understand if there a particular requirement that we need to meet in terms of how many disability-accessible car parking spaces will be provided on site in the car parking area? I know the car park isn’t for broad community use anyway; it’s not meant to be a car parking facility for patrons. Presumably we are providing disability car parking for patrons to some extent. How many car parking spaces will there be for disability access for attending events? Is there a particular standard we’re meeting in providing that number?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the design includes drop-off spaces with level access to the venue. There are no current minimum number of car spaces, however, the transport plan that will be developed before commencing operations will ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act and all other requirements.
Ms WEBB – That sounds a little ominous. Lots of people won’t be in a position to be dropped off, though. They will need to park at the venue and will need disability access car parking to do that. I would like to be a bit clearer about the intention. Is there an intention at the facility to provide disability car parking spaces for patrons to some extent? Even if you can’t give me a specified minimum, is there some number that is part of the plans at this stage that we understand? Knowing that the car parking area is probably also partly for staff. I want to be clear about whether there’s an intention to provide staff-related disability access, car parking, but also patron-related disability car park access?
Ms RATTRAY – The accessible drop-off area is for accessible use only and there will be accessible car spaces provided within the precinct. The stadium footprint includes operational parking, and these will include accessible parks. Definitely yes. This project will comply with any number of requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act under Tasmanian law.
Ms WEBB – To wrap that up then, because I still feel like we’re not going to have total clarity here today, at what point will it be decided how many disability accessible car parking spaces will be provided on site for patrons attending events at the stadium? I don’t mean drop off and pick up. I am talking about disability accessible car parking spaces specifically for patrons at the venue. When will that be decided?
Ms RATTRAY – Again for completeness, when the detailed design plan is finalised for the car parking plan, this plan includes all types, including disability parking. When the car park plan is finalised, that’s when we will have a number.
Ms Webb – When is that expected to be? Sorry, I’m looking for a when.
Madam CHAIR – When it’s finalised.
Ms Webb – Yes, but when is that expected to be?
Madam CHAIR – Order
Ms Webb – The intention of my question is pretty clear.
Ms RATTRAY – Further, before a stage of work for the project commences, a plan must be prepared for car parking.
Ms O’CONNOR – I note the presence in the Chamber of a large blow fly, probably drawn in here by the smell of this order.
Madam CHAIR – I think there’s some hot weather outside.
Ms O’CONNOR – Oh, probably. Maybe it is, but this order does stink.
My question relates to the site suitability statement referred to in paragraph 7. One of the issues raised by the Tasmanian Planning Commission was the lack of a site suitability statement which is prepared in respect of project land as required under schedule 5 of this order. The Tasmanian Planning Commission found that the site is in fact wholly unsuitable. Notwithstanding that statement and finding from independent experts, when will the site suitability statement be finished?
Some people in the normal planning world might think you would do a site suitability statement before you prepared an order or before you made a decision to put a project on a particular site. What’s the timeframe on the preparation of the site suitability statement?
Ms RATTRAY – The accredited environmental auditor is currently reviewing the works completed to date and as set out in section 39F of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act, the environmental auditor is to certify works and this is anticipated for the whole site in consideration of the current precinct plan in January or February of next year.
Ms O’CONNOR – The question I asked was specific to a site suitability statement. When will there be a site suitability statement? The statement referred to by the TPC in their final report. The statement referenced in this provision of the order. It shouldn’t be a hard question, and I’d have thought there’s work being undertaken on a site suitability statement already. Will that site suitability statement be a public document?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the site suitability statement is the certification process undertaken by the accredited environmental auditor and it will be completed in January/February of next year, that’s 2026, and the site suitability statement assessment process is underway. The reference in the order is to the work completed under section 39F of the Macquarie Point Development Act.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, thank you. I note with disappointment that four of our honourable colleagues who indicated they would be supporting this order –
Madam CHAIR – We are not going to reflect on the members of the Chamber. If you have a question, you can ask the question. We won’t reflect on other members.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m not going to reflect on any other members. I was simply saying that we all have to be held accountable in this place.
Madam CHAIR – We will, and we are. If you could move on to the question, that’s the purpose of this part of the process.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will go back to the question that wasn’t answered from my previous question. Will the site suitability statement be a public document?
Ms RATTRAY – Apologies and yes, I was about to get up once the honourable member had finished speaking. Yes, it will be a public document.
Clause 22 considered.
Clause 23 – B9
Ms O’CONNOR – This relates to traffic access, parking and circulating infrastructure within project land. We’ve already had some questions relating to the provision of parking for people with mobility issues or a disability, but we need some clarity. The Council needs some clarity on the originally proposed three-storey car park that was changed to a two-storey car park. Then, in Estimates last week when I asked the minister for MPDC about unfunded elements of the stadium project, he said the footpath is not necessary and that’s the Davey Street footpath and we’ll get to that.
He didn’t have his head around the car park. The Council should understand what the actual plan for car parking is and has the now-proposed two-storey car park, which is unfunded in the budget, being abandoned?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, a car park has been considered in parallel to the process of designing the stadium. It is not required for the operations of the stadium. However, it was considered for design and development efficiencies for the precinct, and a car park will be delivered as part of the precinct. This is being considered working with TasPorts to determine the most effective option. The two storey car park, as outlined, will only be delivered if determined to be viable and feasible.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this project changes almost by the hour. Apparently, we couldn’t renegotiate any part of the contract.
I take you now to the proposed pedestrian upgrades, which were referenced by the Tasmanian Planning Commission in their final report as a necessary part of ensuring public safety in and around the stadium. I asked the minister responsible for the Macquarie Point Development Corporation during Estimates, the week before last, about the Davey St pedestrian upgrades, which are – surprise, surprise – unfunded in this state Budget. The minister, Mr Abetz, said the footpath is not necessary. Later that day, when I asked Ms Beach from the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, I said:
The project now won’t have the underground car park and it won’t have the pedestrian improvements on Davey and Collins streets. Is that correct?
Ms Beach said:
Through you, minister, no pedestrian improvements are required.
When the Tasmanian Planning Commission came in last Thursday, I asked them about the pedestrian improvements. I said:
Given that – straight from the Treasurer he’s walked away from the Davey Street pedestrian fixes – would that raise your level of concern about the evacuation risk?
Mr Turner, who chaired the panel, said:
No, because there will have to be a comprehensive plan to be put in place to mitigate against the risk, and that, one assumes on the basis of the evidence that we’ve heard, will demand attenuation measures along Davey Street and other places.
Then he went on to say the fundamental point is that it needs to be done. The advice of the independent experts, which has been largely ignored by this government, the fundamental point is that those pedestrian upgrades need to be done in order to ensure public safety. Will they be undertaken by the proponent?
Ms RATTRAY – This is the development approval stage and, as with any DA, a lot of the specific detail that’s being requested will be determined through the next stage of preparing plans.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I feel like I’m speaking a different language. I’ve asked a really clear question and it is either dismissive and disrespectful to just get up and talk about another subject, or I’m speaking a different language.
My question again is: is the proponent of the clear understanding, based on the advice provided by the independent experts and, of course, common sense, that there will need to be pedestrian upgrades along Davey Street, particularly in order to ensure public safety? That’s what we’re talking about here. It’s not an abstract. We’re talking about potentially thousands of people having to be evacuated in an emergency from a stadium in a very contained location, in terms of getting out of there safely. Has the proponent actually walked away, as was told to us in Estimates, from the necessary improvements to ensure public safety along Davey Street near the stadium particularly?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the upgrading of infrastructure required for pedestrians outside of the stadium precinct is not the subject of this order. An events management plan will be required that includes patron arrival and departure plans, which I have already talked about at an earlier time, and infrastructure upgrades will be considered as part of that planning process.
Furthermore, dynamic pedestrian modelling has been undertaken to test the movement of people from their seats to destinations across the city. From this modelling, only temporary operational mitigations are required, for example, to use the bus layover lane in front of Zero Davey to provide 7 metres of walking space. This will require temporary barriers, not capital works. This work has been undertaken since the initial work under the –
Ms O’Connor – We were told in Estimates that no pedestrian improvements were required. Is that true or not?
Ms RATTRAY – I will just finish what I’ve got here, thanks, because I just couldn’t quite read a word. This work has been undertaken since the initial work under the POSS submission to inform the POSS submission. I will seek some more advice on that one.
Ms O’Connor – I just want to have what was said in Estimates confirmed here during examination of this order.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I will repeat that the Davey St pedestrian upgrades are not part of this order and are not considered necessary.
Ms O’Connor – So you’re just making it up as you go.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Clause 23 considered.
Clause 24 considered.
Clause 25 – B11
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the provision that again gives the all powerful – and apparently now, all knowing – secretary of State Growth the power to approve detailed engineering drawings for the stormwater infrastructure. How is the secretary of the department qualified to approve detailed engineering drawings for stormwater infrastructure? Does the consultation with the Hobart City Council specified in this part of the order mean that consensus must be reached on those engineering drawings and any decision to approve the stormwater infrastructure works? Would that be consulted with Hobart City Council? What sort of level of authority will council have, given that there’s no requirement for consensus to be reached? There’s no penalty if the secretary of a department doesn’t do all he can to reach consensus.
Why doesn’t this part specify the drawings must be prepared by a suitably qualified person? What protection does the government – the proponent – have for the fact that the secretary of the Department of State Growth is not an engineer, or an expert, for example, in stormwater management, although he’s given this power to approve, having examined detailed engineering drawings for which he may need an interpreter?
Ms RATTRAY – This is where the secretary must consult with the Hobart City Council. The Hobart City Council has the expertise in this area. The secretary is required to take all reasonable steps to reach consensus, and we’ve talked about what happens if that isn’t available.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Again, this brings us back to a central flaw in this order. Yes, the secretary must consult with Hobart City Council but, as we’ve established, if the secretary doesn’t consult or reach a consensus with Hobart City Council, there’s no penalty provisions within this act and there’s no opportunity to be afforded judicial review. What actual capacity to influence decisions around stormwater infrastructure, by the authority which has primary responsibility for them in the city of Hobart – that is, the Hobart City Council – what actual authority are they given here? In effect, it looks like they’re given none.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, before works in respect of the project commenced, detailed engineering designs and supporting materials for those designs must be prepared, that are prepared and certified by a suitably qualified engineer. Very clear.
Ms O’Connor – Again, no meaningful answers to the questions.
Clause 25 considered.
Clause 26 considered.
Clause 27 considered.
Clause 28 – B14
Ms O’CONNOR – Clause 28.B14(1) provides that:
(1) Before a stage of works for the Project commences, detailed engineering design drawings of proposed changes to existing public footpaths and shared-use paths, required as a result of the Project must be –
XYZ. It also allows that to be approved by the secretary in consultation with the planning authority. Can the Leader for government confirm that planning authority in this case is the Hobart City Council and TasPorts, before works on that stage commence? Again, if the secretary in approving these detailed drawings around shared-use footpaths and the like, makes a flawed decision that puts public safety at risk, does he have any liability for careless approvals, or the Crown, for example, or the minister? Good to see you, Mr Hiscutt.
Madam CHAIR – No, it’s inappropriate to reflect on a member in that way. I ask you to stop and to ask the questions and stick to that.
Ms RATTRAY – If the honourable member would like to move to 28B.14(1)(b), it says that it is:
(b) approved by the Secretary, in consultation with TasPorts and the Hobart City Council, before works on that stage commence.
Ms O’CONNOR – Again, I must be speaking Swahili because I asked a question about liability as well. Is there a liability potentially held by the secretary for the Department of State Growth if his approval under this provision is flawed and ends up putting public safety or public health at risk? Where does the liability under this provision sit if a decision is made that is flawed?
Ms RATTRAY – The secretary is required to act with care and diligence in the course of their State Service employment. This includes seeking expert input to decision-making in areas where they do not hold the expertise. It also says that it has to be in consultation with TasPorts and the Hobart City Council, which have the expertise, before works on that stage commence.
Ms O’CONNOR – But the answer is not provided.
Madam CHAIR – Just put the question.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will put the question in plain English because I’m not being heard. The question is, under this provision, like there’s so many provisions, where does civil liability lie if the secretary for State Growth makes a decision despite the advice that they have been given that ends up leading to people being injured or killed or the like? Where does civil liability lie for decisions made under this provision that are bad decisions?
Ms RATTRAY – The courts will determine liability based on the individual circumstances of any event, and the secretary is an employee of the Crown.
Clause 28 considered.
Clause 29 considered.
Clause 30 – C1
Ms O’CONNOR – I’d like to understand why this provision – 30.C1(1) – has been structured in this way. It says:
(1) At least 30 days before a stage of works for the Project commences, a plan must be prepared, for construction and environmental management of that stage, that –
(a) contains the details specified in conditions C2 and C4; and
(b) is approved by the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the EPA.
What happens if, or when, the Environment Protection Authority raises an issue for any part of the construction and environmental management of that stage? What exactly is the authority of the EPA relative to the secretary in approving construction and environmental management plans within this provision?
Ms RATTRAY – If an issue is raised by the EPA, it must be addressed, and the EPA retains all statutory powers under their act.
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m sorry, I can’t see any requirement that if an issue is raised by the EPA, it must be addressed. Perhaps the Leader could point us to that in her answer to my next question.
These provisions give a lot of power to the secretary and the Director of the EPA to approve aspects of the Construction Environmental Management Plan that don’t conform with the conditions set out in later schedules. For what reasons can or could the secretary and the Director of the EPA approve a condition that does not conform with conditions in later schedules? Or is it solely at their discretion?
Ms RATTRAY – It is anticipated that the construction environmental management plan will be varied at different stages of the project. The order allows for a staging plan to be developed and approved that clarifies what plans will be required at each stage. Furthermore, the secretary cannot approve a plan that does not comply with the conditions of the order.
Clause 30 considered.
Clause 31 and 32 considered.
Clause 33 and 34 considered.
Clause 35 – D1
Ms O’CONNOR – This provision allows for the stadium to be used for events when it’s incomplete and (e) does not require lighting to be installed or operational inside the stadium itself, and buses don’t need to actually be in use. Why?
Ms RATTRAY – It clearly says in 35 D1 the stadium may only be used for events if the following requirements have been implemented to the satisfaction of the secretary. Then it goes on to outline (a)(i), (a)(ii); (b); (c); (d); (e)(i), (e)(ii), (e)(iii), (e)(iv); (f); (g); (h) and (i).
As I’ve said, the stadium may not be used for events until a plan is prepared for the operational management of the stadium that addresses the matters specified in condition D6 and further is approved by the secretary. The stadium may only be used for events in accordance with the plan prepared under subclause (1).
Ms O’CONNOR – Perhaps, this is the point at which we should have some clarity about what exactly has been developed or is understood to be needed about an emergency evacuation plan. Perhaps, given we’ve had the minister responsible and a proponent by MPDC state that the pedestrian upgrades to Davey St are not required, we could have a picture painted for Council of what an evacuation from the site might look like in the event of an emergency or a fire or the like inside the stadium.
This is taking a long time.
Ms RATTRAY – It’s a comprehensive answer.
An occupancy certificate requires compliance with the fire service regulations, and the evacuation management plans will be published on the MPDC website to detail evacuation in all modes, including fire during construction. For example, clause 44 D10 requires a plan for flood and emergency 12 months prior to operation.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Hobart, third call.
Ms O’CONNOR – Specifically what was asked for was a picture, for Council, a better understanding of how people en masse would be evacuated from the site in the event of an emergency. It’s not good enough for the Leader to say, ‘Well, they’ll be prepared 12 months before construction begins.’ I’m sorry to paraphrase you incorrectly potentially, Leader, but what would an evacuation from that site look like? Does the proponent have any understanding of that at the moment, or is it just going to be made up as we go along?
Ms RATTRAY – The evacuation modelling has been undertaken for pedestrian movements for each event mode. These are published on the MPDC website. If the member so wishes, they can be tabled.
Ms O’CONNOR – Could you, please? Yes, I wish for them to be tabled for the public record. Is that appropriate?
Madam CHAIR – Does the Leader want to add anything, or are you done?
Ms RATTRAY – If the member is comfortable, happy to proceed. I will have those documents ready for tabling as soon as I get them in my hands.
Ms O’Connor – Sure. It would have been helpful to have a better picture explained.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Clause 35 considered.
Clause 36 – D2
Ms O’CONNOR – This provides that all powerful, all knowing secretary of the Department of State Growth can allow for a major event at the stadium outside the hours specified in subclause (2) of this provision within the order. Who is the secretary required to consult? It is unclear. It’s not articulated in this provision that the secretary has to consult with anyone. The secretary could just decide by himself or herself to approve a major event outside the hours that could run till two or three in the morning, impacting on the lives of everyone who lives in and around the city, I might say, and decide that because they think it’s a good idea.
Who does the secretary talk to before approving an event outside the hours prescribed within this provision? I say again that there’s nothing in here that details any requirement to consult or to particularly consider potentially relevant matters.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, a change in operation hours would require an amendment to the Events Management Plan or special management, which triggers the consultation requirements under section 7.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, thank you. I’m interested in this one. I saw that there is that consultation requirement with that list from A6 and that seems sensible. Of course, if there is to be an out-of-hours event that is approved, it might be that the the general public or broader entities in the area might wish to know. Is there a particular timeframe that approval for an out of hours event has to be done a certain number of days or whatever out from the event and then put into the public domain somewhere like put on a website or someplace where another person who might be planning a nearby event could just check to see whether on the same date that they’re going to have their event a block away that there isn’t something approved out of hours, unusually by the secretary through this mechanism? Can you talk me through if there are timelines involved and if there’s public visibility of things that have been approved to occur out of hours?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, given that this is for major events, I’d expect that there’d be tickets sold for a major event and everyone would know what the event was if you purchased tickets to head to it. Additionally events will require public visibility in order to generate attendance and this would be a decision published on the State Growth website.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, for clarity about that, I’m speaking about people who might be interested not in buying tickets to an event or looking at publicity for events but planning around events. Just for clarity, a list of approved events would be somewhere easily accessible on the State Growth website that people could check?
If you could confirm that’s definitely the case and, if so, how far out can people expect that to be the case? The reason I’m asking that is when people are planning their own events, they might be doing that some distance out as well, and if they want to make sure they’re not going to coincide with an approved major event outside regular hours, how far ahead can they expect to see that on the State Growth website?
Ms RATTRAY – Because it could well be a promoter, that would depend on what the lead time is for the promotion of a major event, but as soon as that information was available, it would be published on the State Growth website. It is difficult to define an actual length of time, but certainly major events don’t take long for word to get about.
Clause 36 considered.
Clause 37 considered.
Clause 38 considered.
Clause 39 and 40 considered.
Clause 41 – D7
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the provision that requires at least 18 months before the stadium is to be used for the first time or at such a later date as approved in writing by the secretary. A plan must be prepared for the management of events at the stadium that addresses the matters specified in subclause (2) and is approved by the secretary.
This will be one of about 20 plans that are foreshadowed in this order that will not come back to parliament. We will have no line of sight to those plans as far as I can tell, although hopefully there will be relevant documents, but by then there’ll be no capacity to have any input into them.
Can the Leader explain how this provision works and how all those other people and entities who are part of that site will be consulted and incorporated into the development of an Events Management Plan, particularly given that we know it will need to be written in such a way that, if it can, protects the amenity of people who live in and around Macquarie Point.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, Stadiums Tasmania will need to develop a plan that complies with this section. Section 7 consultation applies. Stadiums Tasmania will be expected to consult more broadly on the development of the plan, including with the community and the council. Furthermore, as outlined in clause 2(2), relevant documents form part of the conditions of the order and this is one of those relevant documents, and will also be published on the register of decisions on the State Growth website. It is going to be a busy website.
Ms THOMAS – Madam Chair, with your indulgence, before I ask my question, I want to put on the record that I refute and am somewhat offended by the assertions made by the member for Hobart earlier and imputations made about me and other honourable members in taking a break from the Chamber.
Madam CHAIR – Not now. Let’s –
Ms THOMAS – It’s related to my question. I want to put on the record that I thoroughly scrutinised the order and asked questions at the draft stage and, in fact, achieved some changes to the final order based on the questions I asked and feedback I provided. I satisfied myself that many of the matters, the details of matters –
Madam CHAIR – I ask the member get to her question, please.
Ms THOMAS – will be confirmed by plans that are set out and required in the order.
I want to ask: can you confirm that the government is expecting and preparing for scrutiny of any plans required by the order by the parliament through the Public Accounts Committee, and that any decision making processes in relation to these plans required under the order will be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee, and on advice of the probity adviser, that has been inserted into the governance oversight and assurance framework?
Ms Webb – And the question was?
Ms O’Connor – I want to confirm that. Perhaps in answering that, if that is the case, point us to the part of the order where there’s a requirement that those plans go to parliament.
Madam CHAIR – Order. There is no one on their feet, so I can’t hear anybody anyway, and I don’t want snide comments around the Chamber. I asked the member for Elwick to get to the question. She took a little bit long about that. It’s not appropriate to be reflecting on other members across the Chamber, whoever it is. We’ve got a long night ahead and I ask all members to be respectful and not comment on the absence, presence, or any other attribute of a member, or every member.
Ms RATTRAY – Thank you. The answer is yes, and PAC will be able to consider all plans.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. On the capacity for the Public Accounts Committee, I presume, to call in plans: is that correct? I can’t recall seeing any part of the order that makes it a requirement that any plan goes to the Public Accounts Committee. Can you confirm it’s kind of a call in power, if you like, to the Public Accounts Committee? I will make the observation that the current make up of the Public Accounts Committee –
Madam CHAIR – Order. We are not going to reflect on the membership of a committee or anyone else in this House.
Ms O’Connor – Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully argue that it is a matter of public record that five of the six members of PAC support this order.
Ms Thomas – I got to my question, Chair.
Madam CHAIR – Order. Can you sit down? Has the Leader completed her answer to the member for Elwick?
Ms RATTRAY – I was about to answer.
Madam CHAIR – I ask the Leader to complete her answer, if she hasn’t.
Ms RATTRAY – I was going to answer the member for Hobart when she asked the question about the Public Accounts Committee and its call in powers.
Madam CHAIR – Right. If the Leader can respond to the question about the call in powers for PAC?
Ms RATTRAY – The answer is yes, the Public Accounts Committee does have those call in powers.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek some guidance from you about why it would be inappropriate to note that the membership of the parliamentary committee has a particular by number view on an issue, that is, that PAC has five members on it that support this order?
Mr Edmunds – It probably reflects both Chambers.
Ms Webb – It doesn’t really.
Ms O’Connor – It does not.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Ms O’Connor – I just seek guidance –
Madam CHAIR – Order. I go back to the purpose of this process. The purpose of the process is to scrutinise the matters related to the section of the order we’re looking at, which is clause 41.
I will reiterate: debate in the Committee stage, which we’re effectively in now, is to consider the clause item that’s under consideration. It’s not an invitation or opportunity to revisit arguments raised in a substantive motion, in regards to broader policy issues, or the matter as a whole.
The member for Elwick asked whether PAC would be able to scrutinise these matters that are raised in this clause. She asked that question, the member has responded, and she’s confirmed that answer or that power. PAC can effectively do what PAC wants; the powers are pretty broad with PAC.
The rationale of considering matters in the Committee of the Whole is that the procedures of the Committee are designed to facilitate detailed examination of this clause, not matters outside of that, which would include membership of a committee. Reflection on the membership of the committee, it reflects on the parliament. Membership of the committee reflects the membership of our parliament, and I will not allow it.
Ms WEBB – I have a point of clarification I’d like to check with you, Madam Chair. The member for Hobart was on her feet most recently, and she had put a question following on from the member for Elwick’s question.
Madam CHAIR – And the question has been answered.
Ms WEBB – Yes. As part of that question, because it was related to PAC and whether there was a requirement or a call-in –
Madam CHAIR – Do you have a question?
Ms WEBB – I’m giving clarification. Her comment about the make up of PAC wasn’t a reflection on the members; it was a factual statement.
Madam CHAIR – Order. I will make a point that it was reflecting on the membership of PAC. This clause we’re dealing with, to remind members where we are, was about the requirement at least 18 months before the stadium is to be used for the first time or such later date, that the matters related to subclauses(2)(a) to (2)(k) could be matters that the PAC could consider, and the answer was yes. There is no further scrutiny of PAC in terms of its membership other than the power to consider it.
Ms WEBB – I’m just checking, because one of our intentions in doing this process is scrutiny of the order. One of the important things we often check for in these sorts of instruments, whether it’s a bill or an order, is what checks and balances are there and what further scrutiny will happen down the track. I believe the member’s reflection on the make up of PAC related to the fact that if that is parliament’s opportunity for future scrutiny, then there was a certain makeup there in that. I think it was relevant, is what I’m saying.
Madam CHAIR – Order. I will ask the member to resume her seat. I will leave the Chamber and ask the President to come and adjudicate on this matter.
Before I can do that, the Leader can sit back down. I have made a ruling that we are not talking about or dealing with the membership of PAC. We are dealing with the matters in this. The PAC has the powers to consider it. The membership of PAC is not up for debate or consideration in that.
Ms O’Connor – We have to be very careful we’re not censoring members here unduly.
Madam CHAIR – Sit down please. Sit down, please, while I’m taking advice, thank you.
I will just reiterate for all members that the purpose of scrutinising clause 41 and asking questions around that, relate to provisions in that clause. Reflecting on the future membership of the members of the committee is not appropriate, or to suggest that members of the committee may or may not be capable of scrutinising matters that come before the PAC related to this order, or any other matter in front of PAC is disorderly and inappropriate.
I wish to remind members the debate in Committee of the Whole is not a grievance-type debate.
The membership of the PAC has nothing to do with the capacity of the PAC to scrutinise matters that may be referred to it under this section of the order. This section is about events management and matters related to that which are all outlined in clause 41. If the members could constrain their questions to that matter, rather than matters broader than that.
Mr GAFFNEY – I suggest that we adjourn once we finish with this one because it’s been a long day. We’re tired and I think it’s starting to show. Once we deal with this one, we should adjourn for our meal break and then come back.
Madam CHAIR – We were intending to do that anyway, if we could just deal with this matter.
Mr GAFFNEY – Yes, please, let me finish. I’m putting on the case that I think that we need to have a break so that we can have –
Madam CHAIR – That’s what we were intending to do.
Mr GAFFNEY – Yes, and please let me finish. I stood up and I want to say that let’s finish with this one and then have a break, please.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, that was exactly my intention, but we’ve got this before us, and I wanted to finish that.
Madam CHAIR – The matter before the Chair was that this clause – we had a question that I believe has been answered, in relation to whether or not – if there are other questions on this clause we need to deal with them because there are other questions we should deal with before we have the break. I will ask the question: are there further questions on clause 41?
Ms WEBB – I have a fairly straightforward question, and it relates to 41.D7(2):
(k) delivery and servicing arrangements for food, drinks and goods that may be required for, or are relevant to, events at the Stadium.
It might not be relevant to here and if it’s not, I’m sure the Leader and her advisers will let me know it belongs somewhere else or is not related to the order.
In terms of food, drinks and beverages at the stadium: is it the expectation there’s also the opportunity for patrons to bring their own food and beverages to the stadium for events? Or would they be required to purchase in-stadia food and drinks? I wonder if there are different arrangements that are needed for food and beverages brought to the stadium by patrons and where that’s captured.
Ms RATTRAY – That is an operational matter and that will remain with Stadiums Tasmania as they work through their operational process.
Clause 41 considered.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I move –
That the Committee reports progress and seeks leave to sit again at a later hour.
Progress reported.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
Ms RATTRAY (McIntyre – Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council) – Mr President, I move –
That the sitting be suspended until the ringing of the division bells.
This is for the purpose of a dinner break. I indicate that will be around 7.45 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.44 p.m. until 7.48 p.m.
STATE POLICIES AND PROJECTS (MACQUARIE POINT PRECINCT) ORDER 2025 (No. 49)
In Committee
Resumed from above.
Schedule 1
Clause 42 –
Clause 42 considered.
Clause 43 considered.
Clause 44 – D 10
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the provision that provides for an approval in writing by the secretary for a plan for the management of flood and emergency evacuations from the stadium that addresses various matters and again is approved by the all-powerful, all-knowing secretary of State Growth. My questions are: who will the secretary consult with in the development prior to his approval of this plan and what is the proponent’s current understanding of the level of flood risk and that includes storm surge inundation, which we know will become more frequent on that site?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, while I’m waiting for an answer to the question that’s been posed, I seek leave to table egress plans that visually demonstrate the pathways in an evacuation in sports mode and concert mode from the stadium. There are four pages and they’re also published at http://www.macpoint.com/showcase under the ‘Plans’ tab.
Leave granted.
Ms RATTRAY – The secretary would consult the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management and the State Emergency Service.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I did ask and my question wasn’t answered. What is the proponent’s current understanding and assessment of flood risk on the site for which this plan to be approved by the secretary would presumably seek to mitigate? Is there any documentation that can be made available to the Council about flood risk on the site and that would presumably include storm surge inundation?
Ms RATTRAY – There’s a considerable amount of information on the TPC website. Flood and storm surge modelling has been undertaken and that is published. The models to the 1-in-100-year event illustrate areas around the site would have some impact, however there is minimal risk to the project site. This modelling has been reviewed by the SES.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, can I confirm, given what the Leader just said about the material that looks at the possibility of a 1-in-100-year flood event, that the information which the Leader has referred to incorporates the work of, for example, our Climate Futures scientists, and that body of work, which has been funded by the Tasmanian people and the Australian Government is the Climate Futures work informing the development of a flood and emergency evacuation plan on the site? Because to say that significant flood events might be 1-in-100-year events at a time of accelerating climate disruption, it seems to me to be outdated at best.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the government has included climate risk in their modelling, but for further information you would need to review the published modelling.
Clause 44 considered.
Clause 45 – D11
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the provision D11 condition in schedule 1, which details, in scant detail, I might say, that a plan must be prepared, for the management of transport operations at the stadium that outline specific strategies and operational tactics to be used to manage, at different times and on different days, traffic flow, pedestrian access, taxi and ride share access, public transport services, and cyclists in and around project land with the ability to adapt to different types and sizes of events, details of construction type, and surfaces of pedestrian pathways –
Mr DUIGAN – Chair, point of order. Does the member need to read the clause?
Madam CHAIR – Given the context of the question, it’s fine. I will allow the member to give context to the question and then get to the question.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Chair. It also needs details of construction type, and surfaces of pedestrian pathways in the stadium and surrounding areas to ensure that pathways are sufficient for patron numbers and that potential hazards to patrons are minimised.
Can the Leader for the government tell us what kind of consultation will there be on those specific strategies concerning transport and, given the impact on the Hobart community that I represent, will there be any engagement with the broader public on the development of this plan which deals with public transport and pedestrian access? Is it likely that those pedestrian works which were assessed by the TPC as necessary – that is, pedestrian fixes to Davey Street – would be incorporated into this plan?
Ms RATTRAY – There’s a plan that Stadiums Tasmania will have to have, and there would be an expectation that they would consult with the community and certainly Hobart City Council.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s an expectation perhaps that there’s public consultation, but there’s no requirement for public consultation, which should be noted. Perhaps the Leader could, in her next response, answer the question that I asked previously about the pedestrian upgrades along Davey Street and whether consideration of those elements is likely to be incorporated into this plan. While I’m on my feet, perhaps the Leader for the government could explain the impact on port operations of construction on the site, given that Evans Street from time to time clearly will need to be closed during the construction phase, and large trucks can’t get under the bridge at McVilly Drive.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I’ve already answered the question on pedestrian movements for Davey Street, and there are no plans to close Evans Street during construction.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this provision also allows for engagement with public transport providers to ensure sufficient event buses and general access buses and ferry services for events. The bus infrastructure that is a part of the original project is not funded in the Budget. Does the proponent at this point have an understanding of where those buses might be sourced from? At the moment, I imagine that the primary provider of those transport services would be Metro?
Ms RATTRAY – The school bus fleet will be repurposed for event day bus services.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, what proportion of the school bus fleet is disability accessible?
Ms RATTRAY – There isn’t an answer directly to that question, but the government is aware that the school bus fleet will need to be upgraded over time.
Ms WEBB – I’m just slightly concerned by that answer because clearly ‘over time’ is not specific. What would be good to know is if we’re repurposing the school bus fleet to provide the buses for just even the beginning time of the stadium’s operation. Do we have any clear idea about what proportion of the bus fleet that we’re going to utilise there will be disability accessible?
Ms RATTRAY – A response to that would be that the government would work through that over the next four years. It will be demand driven.
Ms THOMAS – Chair, I just ask the government to clarify in terms of planning processes generally for government infrastructure projects and in regard to planning for projects such as this that require transport changes generally: would it be reasonable to expect that this level of detail would be determined at the stage post development application or planning permit being issued, which is what the plans provide for, and would it be reasonable to suggest that the level of detail we have at this time is appropriate for a development planning permit to be issued, with the further detail to be determined through the plans that are to be prepared following?
Ms RATTRAY – The short and sharp answer is yes.
Clause 45 considered.
Clause 46 – D12
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the development of yet another plan towards the stadium, but this is for the management of noise and this plan will have significant consequence for people who live in and around the stadium. It will also have significant consequence for the world’s finest small orchestra, our own Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra.
Would it be possible to provide Council with some detail of what the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra has requested, not in terms of mitigation but in terms of acceptable noise levels during construction and operation of the stadium? This is particularly important, of course, because the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra requires a level of quiet and less vibrations in order to produce the international quality performances and broadcasting that they do.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, we’ve already answered questions in relation to the TSO and the noise management.
Ms O’Connor – No. Not acceptable.
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, we have.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, I seek your guidance here. There were broad questions asked early in the order about the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra and insufficient answers were provided. These are detailed questions about tolerable noise levels in the construction and operation phases.
Madam CHAIR – I remind all members that it’s entirely up to the Leader in how she chooses to answer the questions. That’s a matter for the Leader. Everyone’s entitled to put their questions, but it is a matter for the Leader as to how she responds to that question.
Ms O’CONNOR – It certainly makes scrutiny of this enormously consequential order very difficult.
Madam CHAIR – That’s the reality; I’m just stating how it works. Do you want to put your question again?
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, thank you. Is the Leader refusing to answer any more questions about the impact of the stadium’s noise levels in construction and operation on the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra? That’s my first question. Will we be provided with no further information on this impact?
In schedule 1, page 67, it sets a number of decibel levels, if you like, for the public address system.
Ms Webb – You have different pages than us. It’s in (o) and (p).
Ms O’CONNOR – In (o) and (p), that’s right. Thank you, member for Nelson.
In (o) and (p), it sets a series of noise levels. Then, in (n), it sets another set of noise levels for major events that are music based. While it doesn’t seem like the Leader wants to provide any more transparency on the impact of the stadium on the TSO, perhaps the Council could be informed about how these noise levels were considered to be acceptable and tested noise levels to the extent that they could be included in this order.
Ms RATTRAY – There have been noise and acoustic experts work through these particular noise levels, and there’s also been that consultation with the TSO. I can prove that I read this out at an earlier time, and I’m not reading it out again.
Madam CHAIR – Member for Hobart, third call.
Ms O’CONNOR – I didn’t ask the Leader to read out previously read information. What I’m trying to understand here is whether these levels that have been set have been set to a standard that’s identifiable somewhere. Is there anything under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act or any other workplace health and safety noise level standard that we can refer to, to understand how these noise levels during these different aspects of the stadium’s operations have been arrived at?
Ms RATTRAY – I am seeking further advice.
The levels were set through detailed testing and modelling of noise levels through those noise experts. The state and the TSO accept the proposed noise standards and are working collaboratively to avoid conflicts associated with major concerts and noise sensitive events at the Federation Concert Hall. Thank you.
Clause 46 considered.
Clause 47 considered.
Clause 48 considered.
Schedule 1 considered.
Ms O’CONNOR – Schedule 2.
Madam CHAIR – There are a number of items in schedule 2.
Ms O’CONNOR – I don’t need to go through every item.
Madam CHAIR – I will ask the Deputy Clerk to call schedule 2 as a whole and the members have three questions related to schedule 2. Thank you, Deputy Clerk.
Schedule 2 – Approved Documentation
Ms O’CONNOR – Schedule 2 is inserted in the order and I guess by the nature of the document we have to accept that’s what it is. What is this approved documentation and what elements of these documents make them documents for the purposes of this statutory instrument? Why were these particular documents, which are named in the middle column, included in schedule 2? What is this? Is this just principally the designs without us going into all the documents? Are these design documents noting that the stadium is only 70 per cent designed? What is it about these documents that has led to them being included in schedule 2?
Ms RATTRAY – These are actually all the elevations, and it was required in the order for the TPC, that’s why it’s here.
Ms O’CONNOR – They’re not design drawings, they’re height drawings. Is that correct? Sorry, I’m not an architect or designer; I’m definitely not a planning expert. We’ve all been given that job this week.
Ms RATTRAY – They are design elements, including elevations and including the different surface finishes.
Schedule 2 considered.
Schedule 3 – Aboriginal Heritage Conditions
Clause 1 – Interpretation
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the Interpretation section of schedule 3, Aboriginal heritage conditions, and it describes an area of land as the Aboriginal heritage area from A, and then it has the grid references. For those of us who do not have those grid references readily to hand or necessarily the skills to determine what they describe, can the government perhaps flesh out some information about what area of land these grid references cover? Do they for example, cover the area of land on the northern access road where significant Aboriginal cultural heritage has been identified? Do they capture the proposed Aboriginal zone that’s apparently coming in part 2 of the stadium’s construction, clearly as an afterthought? What land areas do these grid references describe exactly?
Ms RATTRAY – I’m getting some clarification. I will be receiving more information, but I noticed in clause 1(a)(i) it actually spells out that the line area, and it’s given a grid reference,
… (being approximately 15m east of Davey Street and 230m south-west of the Cenotaph) to grid reference …
And then it goes on to
E527416, N5252556;
So it’s pretty clear in that one,what it refers to, but I will seek additional advice.
Ms O’Connor – It’s marginally clear.
Ms RATTRAY – These grid references reflect the sites identified in the survey, and the areas are shown in the Aboriginal Heritage Register and they reflect the site, as I’ve said, identified in the survey. The Tasmanian government policy treats the location of sensitive cultural values as confidential, and this policy was developed in consultation with Tasmanian Aboriginal people and has been operating over many years. It goes on to say:
This policy is a result of damage occurring on significant Aboriginal heritage sites when information became public and for this reason all Aboriginal heritage site information and assessment records provided from the Aboriginal Heritage Register is confidential.’
Clause 1 considered.
Clause 2 – AH1
Ms O’CONNOR – The Tasmanian Planning Commission – and this is the clause that provides for works to be undertaken on project land in a way that doesn’t damage or destroy Aboriginal cultural heritage, which is a core concern of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. The Planning Commission said
It is very likely the project will have significant negative effects on Aboriginal heritage materials, specifically based on the land the proponent has acquired for the purpose of developing the Northern Access Road. It’s highly likely the road will affect the amalgamated Heritage site on the banks of the Domain headland, and it does not appear likely that the road could be designed to avoid impacts on this site due to the locational constraints and design requirements for the road.
Given clause 2.AH1 allows for the removal of topsoil during works, is it the government’s intention that Aboriginal heritage material would be removed from the site of the northern access road, given the TPC’s determination that it’s effectively impossible to avoid impacts on that cultural heritage site?
Ms RATTRAY – Again, the northern access road is not a part of this order, and I won’t be saying the answer again.
Ms O’CONNOR – The TPC recognised the northern access road as integral to the development of the stadium. There is reference to Aboriginal cultural heritage material, presumably within the footprint of the northern access road in this order. Is that the case, that the Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and area of land, that has Aboriginal cultural heritage materials assessed to be in it, on the northern access road, is within the grid references that we just examined earlier?
Ms RATTRAY – The northern access road is not in the grid references that was in the previous clause.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, thank you. Does this schedule address any of the concerns outlined by the Tasmanian Planning Commission in their final report and, if not, why not? We’ve just had confirmed that this schedule does not relate to the entire project area as set out by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Is there any indication that this schedule addresses the concerns raised by the TPC?
Ms RATTRAY – Nothing further to add.
Clause 2 considered.
Clause 3 – AH2
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, my question is again relating to measures that have been taken to protect Aboriginal heritage or remove or destroy Aboriginal heritage. We’ve just had an indication from the Leader for the government that she’s refusing to answer any questions about whether or not the provisions in this schedule address the concerns raised by the TPC.
Everyone in this place should be concerned about that. There is a refusal to answer questions about the impact and what’s been taken to mitigate the impact of the stadium project on Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Is the Leader telling the Council that there’ll be no more answers to questions on this matter within this schedule? If the Leader is not telling us that, perhaps the Leader could, if we go back to my earlier question, explain to the Council how this schedule addresses the concerns that were raised by the TPC.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I had clearly answered questions that the northern access road is subject to separate design assessment and permit, and I couldn’t add any more to that. It wasn’t that I was refusing to answer. I didn’t have any more information. That’s not part of this.
However, I will answer the question that you’ve just posed. The project site has been through three stages of archaeologist investigations with Aboriginal heritage officers monitoring, and the corporation has an anticipated discovery plan and this clause reflects existing practice.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, it is important to ask questions on this area because it was one that the TPC panel did point to in their report, and they were the independent experts tasked with advising us on this for our consideration. It’s highly reasonable to be seeking some information now that we’re scrutinising this order informed by their report.
At another stage during today’s scrutiny, when we talked about a condition that related to a concern or a matter that had come up in the TPC report, the Leader was able to advise us about how it correlated with the TPC’s concerns or considerations. It is reasonable to ask the Leader for some information about how the conditions here in the order do correlate across to or address the TPC panel’s matters raised in their independent Integrated Assessment Report.
That’s a reasonable question given that –
Madam CHAIR – Do you have a question?
Ms WEBB – It’s about the correlations between addressing matters raised in the IAR report and these conditions here.
Ms RATTRAY – These conditions are what was attached to the TPC report.
Clause 3 considered.
Clause 4 considered.
Clause 5 – AH4
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this is the consultation provision with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, noting that there’s been, according to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, only tokenistic consultation with the Palawa since then. Will that consultation be informing the plan to be developed under this schedule? Given that the plan prepared under this condition has to be prepared to the satisfaction of the minister administering the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 – the Tasmanian government has admitted that the Aboriginal Heritage Act is not fit for purpose and the act is under review – will the minister consider the prepared plan against the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 or the new act, given that we’ve been informed that the modernised Aboriginal Heritage Act will provide an authority or veto, as we understand it, to the Aboriginal community and it will formally recognise the Aboriginal community’s ownership of its heritage – will this plan be assessed under the outdated, tarted up former Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 – now the Aboriginal Heritage Act – or will it be assessed under a modernised Aboriginal heritage framework?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, this clause reflects the consultation as required in the Aboriginal Heritage Act and is consistent with those provisions, and the government will comply with the law that applies at the time.
Clause 5 considered.
Clause 6 – AH5
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, another plan is to be developed in relation to the unanticipated discovery of Aboriginal heritage. Given the long human story of Nipaluna/Hobart, that is a strong possibility on the site. Was the Aboriginal community consulted about this provision within the schedule? Was there consultation with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania about this provision? If so, could we please have some detail on those consultations and, if not, why not?
Ms RATTRAY – The answer is, yes, the government has consulted, and this is the standard unanticipated discovery practice taken from the existing Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania advice to permit holders. That’s what I have there.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, thank you. Obviously, this is a quite sensitive one. I’m interested in what are the ramifications or penalties for not undertaking the prescribed actions relating to unanticipated discoveries. I’m also interested in will the plan that’s described here under 6(1) include a requirement for periodic audits of any suspected or proven Aboriginal heritage? I’m interested because I’m wondering who checks the reports that are being made.
Ms RATTRAY – All penalties would apply under the Aboriginal Heritage Act.
Ms WEBB – Thank you. There were three questions that I had there really, or at least two. Thank you for the penalties answer. The second question related to: will the plan that’s described here include a requirement for periodic audits of any suspected or proven Aboriginal heritage, in terms of an extra check on the reports, and whether they’re being made as required?
Ms RATTRAY – The corporation has an existing unanticipated discovery plan and it is a standard requirement that Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania requires.
Clause 6 considered.
Schedule 3 considered.
Schedule 4 – Historic Cultural Heritage Conditions
Clause 1 – Interpretation
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair. Clause 1, Interpretation, as a definition of ‘relevant works’:
… means works on Project land that –
(a) are heritage works within the meaning of Part 6 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995; or
(b) may have an impact on heritage, within the meaning of that Act, on and around the Project land;
Why has there been an explicit recognition of the fact that the heritage impacts and the relevant works may also be outside the project land as described, given that we’ve just had obfuscation, really, on the part of government, to say that those northern access road Aboriginal cultural heritage issues aren’t to be dealt with, and therefore the Leader won’t answer them; when in this section for European cultural heritage, the proponent clearly accepts the impacts are beyond the described area of project land which the proponent has identified, even though we know the TPC agrees that the area of land covered by the project is much larger just than just the stadium footprint themselves? Why is it okay, apparently, to provide a better protection for European cultural heritage impacted by this project than it is for Aboriginal cultural heritage?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, when developing the construction environmental management plan, heritage around the site is important to consider to inform monitoring and construction methods, such as building conditions. No greater protection is provided in this section, and this has been prepared by heritage experts, so certainly no greater protection for this heritage than Aboriginal heritage.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will put the question really simply: ‘relevant works’ here in Interpretation includes heritage in ‘and around the Project land’.
Ms RATTRAY – It’s actually on and around.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay, ‘on and around the project land’. So why weren’t the Aboriginal cultural heritage provisions applied to Aboriginal cultural heritage on and around the project land?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I said I wasn’t going to repeat myself after dinner, but I will this one time only: Aboriginal heritage will be considered for the northern access road, just not in this process.
Ms O’CONNOR – Is that the Leader’s answer for the question that I put? It must be.
Ms RATTRAY – Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – It is hard not to see this as different treatment of heritage based on race; it is hard not to. Why weren’t the Aboriginal cultural heritage provisions in the previous schedule that we had examined applied to Aboriginal cultural heritage around the project land as it has been defined by the proponent?
Ms RATTRAY – The government will need to consider building structures in heritage, which is not relevant in the Aboriginal Heritage assessment, and it was explained to me like building structures, and there will be no building structures on Aboriginal heritage land.
Clause 1 considered.
Clause 2 H1
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this clause provides that before the historic Goods Shed is relocated and therefore loses a lot of its heritage context, a management plan has to be prepared by the proponent ‘to the satisfaction of Heritage Tasmania’. What if Heritage Tasmania is not satisfied with the management plan that has been prepared by the proponent? What is the process for resolving any issues or conflicts between Heritage Tasmania and the proponent around the management of historic cultural heritage relating to the project?
Ms RATTRAY – Further work would be undertaken to actually comply with what is needed in that situation, so further work.
Clause 2 considered.
Clause 3 – H2
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause that provides for the elements of the heritage conservation management plan for the dismantling of the historic Goods Shed. Is it possible to provide council with an estimation of the cost of these works of dismantling, transporting and reconstituting the Goods Shed on site, and this is a question that the Greens have asked in a number of forums of MPDC, about the budget that has been set aside for the Goods Shed’s relocation?
Ms RATTRAY – This tender will shortly be released to market and it’s not appropriate to publicly state an estimated cost individually.
Ms O’CONNOR – The Leader’s answer is inadequate. Presumably, the proponent has set a budget for the Goods Shed’s dismantling and relocation. Last time we asked this question, maybe a year or so ago, and I am very happy to be corrected, there was an understanding that it might cost in the order of, for example, $6 million. Now, if that’s a number that I have misremembered, I’m happy to be corrected, but can MPDC confirm that it has a budget allocation for the dismantling and relocation of the Goods Shed, and if they’re able to provide any information in the interest of transparency and the wise expenditure of public funds, it would be much appreciated.
Ms RATTRAY – There is a budget allocation, but obviously I can’t give the budget allocation out because the tender will be released shortly to market.
Ms WEBB – I’m reaching back into dim memories in my mind here. I cannot recall if it was when I was on PAC and we began an inquiry on the stadium, or whether it was in a GB estimates or something like that, but I have a memory of discussing this matter and there being information provided by Macquarie Point Development Corporation that the cost of relocating the Goods Shed was going to be sourced from within a bucket of money that MPDC already had, rather than provide it through the government.
I’m just going to check in on the currency of that. My memory it’s probably from a couple of years ago now almost, but I want to see if that’s still the intention, that that’s being funded from within MPDC’s existing resources somehow. I also recall at the time that I asked about the size of their bucket that they were going to draw on and I think it was about a $16 million bucket at that time, so I’m checking in on currency of that.
Ms RATTRAY – There is a budget allocation for the project, to take the Goods Shed down and then reassemble it, but I can’t give you any definite figure. As I have said, the tender will be shortly released to market.
Ms O’CONNOR – Will the tender have a budget management?
Ms WEBB – That’s not the question I’m asking. I will put the question again, it was just about whether it was still the intention to fund that element of this project from within MPDC existing resources, a bucket of money somewhere that’s already to hand – therefore by invitation, we’re not borrowing the money to to move the Goods Shed is what I am asking with that too. So, where’s the money coming from to do it? I’m not asking for a quantum of money; I’m just trying to recall whether what I have heard a couple of years ago in some scrutiny sessions then still applies now?
Ms RATTRAY – The MPDC precinct budget pays for the dismantling and storage of the Goods Shed, so it will come out of the MPDC budget.
Ms WEBB – Yes, the dismantling in the storage will come out of the MPDC budget and then the reassemblage is an additional cost that will come from the government I would then assume, through a budget allocation. I’m not asking for the amount, I’m just clarifying where that will come from, if I may.
Ms RATTRAY – That’s correct.
Ms WEBB – Thank you.
Clause 3 considered.
Clause 4 and 5 considered.
Clause 6 considered.
Clause 7 – H6
Ms O’CONNOR – What constitutes a ‘substantial variation’ in the methodology, as it is not defined in the order?
Ms RATTRAY – Heritage Tasmania will determine whether there’s any substantial variation and I did request if there could be an example, but unfortunately, I can’t seem to find one right now. If one pops up, I will come back to it.
Ms O’CONNOR – It’s starting to feel like government’s just going through the motions now. We’re not getting answers. There seems to be a sort of sense that we will just have to get through this. Tolerate the scrutiny, provide as little information as possible.
Madam CHAIR – I will take it as a statement and ask you to get to your question.
Ms O’CONNOR – It must be able to be explained what constitutes a substantial variation from the methodology in the Heritage Conservation Management Plan. What are we talking about here? I don’t know what we’re even really talking about. This is contained in an order which will determine the fate of heritage on the site. What’s a substantial variation from the methodology? Why might there be such a substantial variation considered when it comes to the protection of European cultural heritage?
Ms RATTRAY – Clause 15.H14 on page 95 actually sets out some more detail. The honourable member might have a look at that rather than me reading it out.
Ms THOMAS – Leader, can you tell us where all these detailed questions on the clauses asked by the Greens were when members were invited to provide feedback and ask questions on the draft order? It seems a bit late in the piece to be informing ourselves on a –
Ms Webb – This is the public record of scrutiny. This is the public record.
Madam CHAIR – Order. Order. If the member has a question, you can put forward a question, otherwise I will take that as a comment.
Ms THOMAS – I did ask a question.
Ms RATTRAY – I’m unable to provide an answer to your question.
Ms O’Connor – We don’t sort of do those deals.
Madam CHAIR – Order. I don’t want any chat across the Chamber. Be respectful. Are there any further questions?
Ms O’Connor – I take offence.
Clause 7 considered.
Clause 8 considered.
Clause 9 – H8
Ms O’CONNOR – We regard going through the order in a public and transparent way, being open to the people who elected us, as essential. Providing feedback on a draft order is not a public and transparent process, nor is negotiating your standards for what you might accept on this order.
My question is that the Construction Environmental Management Plan needs to make provision for the protection of nearby heritage sites, given the infinite intrinsic value of the heritage landscape at Sullivans Cove leading up to the Cenotaph.
For example, will the international heritage experts, ICOMOS or other international or national heritage bodies or experts be consulted in the development of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, given the profound effect construction itself – pile driving, trucks, massive vibrations – can have on the built environment, where we’re talking here about something that is precious beyond compare, which is clearly undervalued by this government?
Will the government seek some highly regarded international or national heritage expertise to help inform it in how to protect places like the Engineers Building, for example, from the shuddering construction impacts right next door?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the Construction Environmental Management Plan will include the conservation management plan approved by Heritage Tasmania that will incorporate the views of heritage experts.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, thank you, I guess. I wouldn’t mind a bit more detail on who those experts might be, because there is actually high quality expertise inside Heritage Tasmania; but given the sensitivity of this built environment, will Heritage Tasmania and the proponent, in developing this construction heritage management plan, consult widely with people who have experience in a project like this in the heart of a European cultural heritage precinct, and an Aboriginal cultural heritage area?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, Heritage Tasmania are experts on local heritage.
Clause 9 considered.
Clause 10 considered.
Clause 11 and 12 considered.
Clause 13 and 14 considered.
Clause 15 – H14
Ms O’CONNOR – This provides for ‘design changes in relation to the Project that are likely to result in greater impacts on the historic cultural heritage of any place listed on the Heritage Register’. What kind of design changes are contemplated or being foreshadowed, that might go outside heritage best practice and not be compliant with the Heritage Conservation Management Plan?
Ms RATTRAY – Nothing’s foreshadowed; this is just a catch all clause, just in case there is something that comes up.
Clause 15 considered.
Clauses 16 and 17 considered.
Clause 18 – H17
Ms O’CONNOR – Clause 18 talks about another plan that’s yet to be written, the Public Domain and Landscaping Plan, which is required under condition B3. While we understand that plan has not yet been written, can the Leader for government explain how that plan will protect the interests of the Hunter Street Arts Centre; The Henry Jones IXL factory; of course, the sacred ground of our Cenotaph; the Royal Engineers Building; Victoria Dock; and Constitution Dock? What are likely to be the elements of that plan that would be sufficient to provide protection to those places of extraordinary and irreplaceable European cultural heritage?
Ms RATTRAY – Given that the plan hasn’t been developed yet, but if you go over the page and it says ‘ensure the following outcomes are delivered substantially in respect to the following locations’, and it actually goes through a number of the locations. I thank the member for naming them up so I don’t have to, and that’s page 98 and 99.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, to me, when I read that, I can clearly see that it’s describing certain things for each of those locations that need to be dealt with and protected and ensured to occur or not occur, which seems sensible; but my question relates to how those particular specifications or elements were arrived at. Was that in relation to other specifications we already have in place? Was it done through specific consultation with Heritage Tasmania? How did we come up with those specifics for each of those locations to constrain what we might do and protect heritage?
Ms RATTRAY – The government’s own expert suggested all these particular areas that have been named up, like 41 Hunter Street, Henry Jones & Co., IXL Jam factory, the Cenotaph, Anzac Parade, Queen’s Battery and so on.
Ms WEBB – I wasn’t asking about the areas that were identified because they’re pretty straightforward. We would all pick those out as the surrounding areas of heritage value. What I was asking about was, for each of them, in what appears to be quite a thoughtful way and I’m not criticising it, I’m interested to understand how we arrived at it for each of them, there’s specifications about what is to be done to protect heritage values.
So for Hunter Street, it says ‘avoid illuminated or other signage that substantially impacts on the prominence of’ certain things. Then the Royal Engineers building has a different set of things that need to be insured. So the question I am asking is: for those specific elements identified for each of those key areas that we are protecting or seeking to protect, how were those things identified? Who was consulted or informed the identification of those particular measures that we would require here in this clause? Is that clear?
Ms RATTRAY – Absolutely clear. I can inform the member the POSS guidelines and then the expert, who is Jim Gard’ner, and then Heritage Tasmania and there were surveys and there was information and there was research that was part of the background of what’s being put forward.
Clause 18 considered.
Schedule 4 considered.
Schedule 5 – Environmental Conditions
Clause 1 – Interpretation
Ms O’CONNOR – This is one of the parts of the order that concerns me most, given the nature of the site and the confirmed contaminants on the site. In the Interpretation section it defines ‘activity’ which includes,
(a) works in respect of the Project; and
(b) associated works approved, in respect of the Project, under this order.
Can the Leader for government confirm that ‘activity’ under this interpretation includes works outside the project land?
Ms RATTRAY – No, it doesn’t. Not outside.
Ms O’CONNOR – So, activity covered by environmental conditions does not cover the northern access road presumably?
Ms RATTRAY – That’s correct.
Ms O’CONNOR – Would it be possible to detail, just to provide a list of proposed works to meet the conditions of this schedule?
Ms RATTRAY – The ‘activities’ is the scope of the project as set out in the order. A staging plan will also be developed as required in this order, which will provide further detail on the stages of these activities and when they will be undertaken, and unfortunately, there’s no list because it’s and when they will be undertaken.
Ms O’Connor – Yes, because you’re making it up as you go along.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Clause 1 considered.
Clause 2 – G1
Ms WEBB – I’m interested in clause 2.G1. It makes sense to me that, of course, if an incident occurs, as it says, on the project that causes various sorts of harm, environmental nuisance, et cetera,
… the person responsible for the works must immediately take all reasonable and practicable actions to minimise any adverse environmental effects from the incident.
I’ve got two questions about that: one, are they also required to report it in some fashion? And, if so, where to and would there be a register of those reports that was also maintained? Because I note in the next clause, which we haven’t got to yet and which is to do with complaints, a complaints register is required. I’m wondering whether we have a similar arrangement around these incidents.
My other question about clause 2 is in relation to ‘take all reasonable and practical actions’ are we just using that as a broad guide? Is there a particular standard that sits around that? Or is there somebody who assesses whether that’s been done adequately and whether in good faith that’s what the person has done to take all reasonable and practicable actions? How do we know?
Ms RATTRAY – The person responsible will report to the EPA and their advice on how to manage that will be taken immediately whatever that environmental harm or material environmental harm might look like.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, I want to track through with the question I asked about a register. So if it’s reported to the EPA that makes sense to me are you able to clarify whether the EPA publicly reports those sorts of matters that are reported to it so that we would have a public record?
Ms RATTRAY – It’s called an annual report.
Ms WEBB – Obviously, I’m quite familiar with annual reports of these agencies. I guess I was seeking to be reassured that there’s a level of granularity in an annual report of the EPA that would allow us to see, for example, how many and perhaps when reports of this nature were made to the EPA about this project and this site. Will we see that level of granularity in reporting?
Ms RATTRAY – I’ll seek some advice to see if there’s any more reporting options other than the annual report. I’m not on my feet either.
Ms Webb – Or just whether the annual report will have that granularity that we will be able to see it.
Ms RATTRAY – I can advise that the EPA also needs to include in its annual environmental review at clause 3 – Sorry, it’s the MPDC that will also need to include in its annual environmental review at clause 3, so it will have it in there.
Ms Webb – That would be part of the complaints register in clause 3 or will it be a different register for incidents in clause 2?
Ms RATTRAY – Let me seek some further clarification around that.
Madam CHAIR – This clause does relate to the incidents rather than the –
Ms Webb – Complaints. I’m just trying to get a distinction between the two.
Madam CHAIR – Stick with the incidents in this one and we will go to complaints in the next clause.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, in Clause 4. G3, it says:
At least 14 days before works on Project land commence, including the commencement of a stage of works for the Project, the person responsible for the works must notify the Director of the EPA of the date on which the works are expected to commence’.
That’s regarding the commencement. In clause 5, the reporting year means the financial year unless otherwise specified in writing by the Director of the EPA.
Further to that and it goes on, each complaint oh, that’s complaints.
Ms Webb – Yes, I might talk about these incidents.
Madam CHAIR – Just stick with the question about how incidents are managed.
Ms Webb – Am I still waiting for an answer about my final question?
Madam CHAIR – There is still an outstanding question that the member had about the reporting of incidents. We’ll get to the other matters later.
Ms RATTRAY – That was my fault. I was given the answer and looked at the wrong clause, so (e) is about the evidence of compliance with the conditions imposed under this schedule during the reporting year to which the report relates to. That is on page 106 in G1.
Madam CHAIR – The question that the member was asking though was about clause 2 regarding incidents and how they’re reported, as I understand it.
Ms RATTRAY – G1?
Madam CHAIR – G1, clause 2.
Ms RATTRAY – There will have to be a report on the compliance as stated in G1.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, again, noting the lack of penalty provisions within this order, G1 requires that if any part of the works has caused, or threatened to cause, ‘pollution that is an environmental nuisance, serious environmental harm or material environmental harm, then the person responsible for the works must immediately take all reasonable and practicable actions to minimise any adverse environmental effects from the incident’. Do those definitions of environmental harm also capture potential risks to public health that might be caused by an incident that releases, for example, contaminated soil containing asbestos and lead into the environment and into the air that the people I represent breathe? What happens?
How is there any surety in this provision that not only the environment will be looked after, but that public health will be looked after? If there is a serious environmental harm or material environmental harm or an identified risk to public health, can the Leader for the government confirm that all reasonable and practicable actions would include stopping work on the project immediately in order to assess, identify, and mitigate the environmental and public health impacts of that incident?
I don’t know, because I’m not sure that we’re being heard as we ask these questions. I’m not sure that we’re being taken seriously in our scrutiny of this order.
If the Leader for the government would like me to repeat those two questions, I’m very happy to do so. This is a matter that’s so serious, the Council should require a serious and detailed answer. What happens? Will work stop on the site if an incident that causes serious environmental harm or a risk to public health is identified? What consequence – apart from the risk to public health and the environment of an incident that releases asbestos and chemical laden materials into the environment – what happens if that person does not immediately take all reasonable and practical actions?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, thank you. I’d like to relay to not only to the honourable member but to anyone else here that if somebody doesn’t think that I’ve been serious about answering questions in regard to this, I have done my absolute best to answer every question that’s been put forward. I don’t appreciate that sort of innuendo.
Ms O’Connor – It just feels that.
Ms Thomas – It’s disrespectful.
Madam CHAIR – Order, order.
Ms O’Connor – I don’t need to be lectured.
Madam CHAIR – Order. We won’t have any chat across the Chamber.
Ms O’Connor – I’m not going to be lectured about respect.
Madam CHAIR – The Leader has the call to answer the question.
Ms RATTRAY – Thank you, Madam Chair. As is with any incident that might occur when there is environmental nuisance, serious environmental harm, or material environmental harm, the EPA will be advised. It will liaise with public health and it will give the advice to the public because that’s what public health does, gives the advice.
As for the penalties, there are penalties in the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 and the contaminated fuel will be managed through the Site Environmental Management Plan as approved by the EPA accredited environmental auditor. The harm includes adverse health or safety of human beings. Obviously that’s a really important key and the response will depend on the incident, and that’s obvious to me.
For example, if a suspected gas leak was identified, works would stop until an investigation is undertaken. Now, I think that’s clear in my mind and I expect it’s clear in a lot of others.
Ms Webb – I don’t think we need the commentary.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, it’s not clear in my mind what would happen, for example, if there was an incident on site that released asbestos containing materials into the environment around Macquarie Point. It is not clear in my mind. In the event of an incident that released asbestos containing materials into the environment and potentially the airshed around the Macquarie Point site, can the Leader for government confirm that works would stop immediately in order to protect public health?
Further, earlier we discussed the revised Site Environmental Management Plan which was, as we know, written in 2012 and updated on 1 December this year. Has the Leader for Government got any update on whether council will be provided with that environmental management plan update before we rise tonight? I will leave it with those two questions for now because I’ve got one more for you.
Ms RATTRAY – It obviously depends on the incident, but the EPA would be advised and WorkSafe would also be advised, and it would be the same if it happened in this building, both of those authorities would be advised and then the responsible actions would be taken by those very important authorities that look after that type of arrangement.
Ms O’CONNOR – The environmental management plan, which has been updated and which we have not been provided with a copy of, relates to the former master plan for the Macquarie Point site. From my recollection, it relates to a development which would have had a construction process that went to approximately 2 metres in depth from ground-level at Macquarie Point. Can the proponent tell Council what is the maximum expected depth of construction works at Macquarie Point site?
Is it up to 12 metres, noting the evidence that we had in Estimates the week before last that soil-sample testing had been taken to a depth of about 19 metres, and will the environmental management plan, when it is presumably further updated, detail that maximum depth of construction into the contaminated soils of Macquarie Point?
Ms RATTRAY – In reply to the report or the updated plan, that’s not available. We don’t have that with us here at the table. So no, it cannot be provided this evening.
Ms O’Connor – Got a timeframe?
Ms RATTRAY – I can check on the timeframe and see if that is available.
Ms O’Connor – So the maximum depth of construction –
Ms RATTRAY – I’m seeking further advice on that. The planning can be provided within one week, Madam Chair, if that’s
Ms O’Connor – After we’ve risen for the year?
Ms RATTRAY – I’m pretty sure we’re back next week, according to my diary.
Ms O’Connor – You said it would be provided within a week.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, we’re here next week, Madam Chair. I will give an undertaking.
Madam CHAIR -Any further questions?
Ms O’CONNOR – Maximum expected depth?
Madam CHAIR – The clause is considered.
Ms O’CONNOR – No, point of order, Madam Chair. This is a question that’s really important to my community. We don’t have an answer from the Leader for government about the maximum depth
Madam CHAIR – Order. It’s not a point of order. As I’ve said previously, the Leader can answer the question as she sees fit, and how she answers is entirely up to her.
Ms O’Connor – It’s not good enough, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR – Order. The Leader can answer the question as she sees fit. The question is – and the member for Nelson has had three calls on this clause, so –
Ms O’Connor – So I’m not getting an answer?
Ms RATTRAY – I do have an answer. Depending on what time we rise, I will give an undertaking that we will do our best to have that, because it part of the plan and it’s not here and it’s a technical question and the plans will have to be looked at. I hope that I’m able to get that, right. Bulk excavation maximum is to 2 metres, relatively level, and the pile maximum is 22 metres. So, hopefully that is helpful to the honourable member.
Clause 2 considered.
Clause 3 – G2
Ms O’CONNOR – This provides for the complaints register and I imagine, from time to time, there will be complaints about environmental nuisances and fear of environmental and public health harm. Can the Leader for government and/or her advisers detail to Council how the proponent has dealt with the issues raised by the Environment Protection Authority late last year in relation to the lack of an environment contaminated land auditors site suitability statement? Have those concerns about what the EPA described as ‘highly contaminated land that may lead to concerns or complaints being raised and registered’, have those concerns of the EPA been dealt with?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I’m advised that the EPA no longer has those concerns.
Clause 3 considered.
Clause 4 – G32
Ms O’CONNOR – Clause 4:
At least 14 days before works on Project land commence, including the commencement of a stage of works for the Project, the person responsible must notify the Director of the EPA of the date on which the works are expected to commence.
What does that notification trigger within the EPA?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, it’s just for the information for the EPA, so it’s almost an awareness clause.
Clause 4 considered.
Clause 5 – G4
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, I note that this clause is to do with a review culminating in an annual environmental review which is put through to the EPA and compiled by the EPA.
It seems sensible; I’m not criticising what’s in the clause. It’s just, as a point of information, I’m wondering once the work on the project land has been submitted to the director of the EPA and has the things in it that need to be put into the annual environmental review, what happens with that annual environmental review? Does it become publicly reported or in some way transparently available for reference beyond internally at the EPA?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, that report would be publicly reported, but it wouldn’t identify who the complainant was. Personal information wouldn’t be included, but it would be publicly reported on the State Growth website.
Ms WEBB – Thank you. That’s helpful. I’m struggling to remember now, did we clarify whether – from back at clause 2. G1, where the reporting of those incidents is done, would that also appear with the annual environmental review or is it a separate reporting by the EPA? When you were answering, you were referring to bits here, but I lost track.
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, it would be reported as part of that annual environmental review, as you had suggested.
Ms O’CONNOR – On what basis – so G4 (2) –
Madam CHAIR – We’re in clause 5. 5(2), were you saying?
Ms O’CONNOR – No, that’s right. It’s got G4(2). There’s so many numbers floating around that, Chair.
Ms Webb – It’s very confusing.
Ms Rattray – I’m keeping up.
Ms O’CONNOR – Good on you. It is challenging.
Within the annual environmental review provision, on what basis would the director of the EPA, if they did, not require an annual environmental review to be submitted?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, if I might, a scenario where something’s just happened three days before an annual review is required, then the director would say it’s not required in that circumstance. That would be the only circumstance.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. Paragraph (f) details that:
… any known non compliance with the conditions imposed under this Schedule during the reporting year to which the report relates;
These are the details to go into any review. Wouldn’t the EPA have already been advised of any non compliance prior to the review being developed and submitted?
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, but this is the annual review of everything that’s happened during the year.
Clause 5 considered.
Clause 6 – G5
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, under what circumstances would a document required to be prepared or maintained under a condition specified in this schedule be amended by the director of the EPA, and who would make that request of the director of the EPA?
Ms RATTRAY – This clause relates to where the director of the EPA might identify an additional risk and then seek an amendment to that document.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, thanks. It must be amended by the proponent, is that correct? If requested in writing by the director of the EPA.
Ms RATTRAY – That’s correct. Thank you.
Clause 6 considered.
Clause 7 – Re1
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, this Re1 is that the development of all or any part of project land must not occur until an accredited environmental auditor has certified that the remediation of that part of project land has occurred to a standard that is satisfactory for the purposes of the project. What are those standards? Are they nationally recognised standards? Are they standards that would be developed by any particular entity or regulator? It would be helpful to understand what standards, or what standard, remediation on the site is held to? While I’m on my feet, just for clarity, if an accredited environmental auditor doesn’t consider that the remediation has occurred to a satisfactory standard, will work on the project’s stop?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the work won’t proceed if that’s not complied with, simple as that.
Ms O’Connor – Through you, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR – You have another call.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, okay. I will restate the question which wasn’t answered because, again, I feel like I’m not totally being heard. Anyway, moving on, what standard are we talking about here? Who sets that standard? Is it an accreditation standard that is nationally consistent? Is it a standard that’s been set by the proponent or the developer? Is it a standard that’s been set by the secretary of the Department of State Growth or the director of the EPA? What does that work standard represent in this provision?
Ms RATTRAY – Thanks, honourable member. These clauses are all replications of 39F of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act. This parliament has actually already set these provisions, so that’s good news. In regard to the standards, the environmental auditor applies their professional judgment as an accredited expert, so that’s where the standards are.
Clause 7 considered.
Clause 8 – Re2
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, will the director of the EPA be required to make public the reasons why they’ve accredited a person to be an environmental auditor? What are the qualifications required to be able to sign off on the remediation of land, given what a huge responsibility that is in terms of protecting public health and the environment?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the environmental auditor is already accredited under 39(F) of the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act 2012.
Ms O’Connor – Are you able to provide Council with any more information on that, or do you want us to look up that provision while we’re trying to ask questions?
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Ms RATTRAY – Re2 is an additional assurance for the Director of the EPA for the accreditation of this person as an environmental auditor. And no, I don’t need you to look up anything. Thanks, member.
Clauses, 8, 9, 10 and 11 considered.
Clause 11 – DC1
Ms O’CONNOR – Again, noting the lack of consequence or penalty provisions if any element of the conditions in this order is not complied with, what happens if a condition in the Site Suitability Statement or the Site Environment Management Plan is not implemented in the design of the project? Who oversights that? Who checks on that? What reassurance do we have?
Ms RATTRAY – The Director of the EPA will monitor that.
Clause 11 considered.
Clause 12 considered.
Clause 13 – CN1
Ms O’CONNOR – CN1(3), again, the Director of the EPA is given significant authority to authorise things in writing contrary to this order. Now I acknowledge that in some cases that might be desirable, but in this case a post-construction report must be submitted containing matters specified:
Unless otherwise authorised by the director of the EPA.
For what reason would the EPA, or could the EPA, not want a report submitted that conforms with what’s requested?
Ms RATTRAY – We can’t really come up with anything. Or maybe we can. Really, it’s just the director may require a shorter or a longer timeframe or the director may seek an initial report when only some items are available, so it’s not that easy to find an answer to that one, but we’ve done our best.
Clause 13 considered.
Clause 14 – CN2
Ms O’CONNOR – This is the clause that provides for the elements of the Construction Environmental Management Plan, which parliament will have no line of sight to until after it’s developed and it says that that plan:
… must –
(a) outline measures for environmental management during construction to prevent the discharge of any pollutants into the environment;
While I recognise that the Construction Environmental Management Plan is one of the 20 plans in this order that has yet to be written and approved, can the proponent give any indication of the measures that would be taken on site to prevent the discharge of pollutants into the environment, noting that that discharge of contaminants that’s contained in the Macquarie Point site represents a recognised risk to public health, which is acknowledged even in the proponent’s own Environmental Management Plan.
Ms RATTRAY – The plan hasn’t been developed yet, Madam Chair, which is entirely appropriate at this stage.
Ms O’CONNOR – Madam Chair, that is simply not sufficient. This project has been in the making for nearly three years. It strains credulity to suggest that no understanding on the part of the proponent exists around how you prevent the discharge of pollutants on site. This is a question that needs an answer tonight, no? I’m the member for Hobart, the community most affected by this order, the people who will most be affected by the noise and the pollutants during the construction phase. They deserve an answer to this question.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I just said the plan hadn’t been developed, but there is a measure already undertaken that includes monitoring noise and the vibration and methods to retain and stop runoff from soil stockpiles.
Ms O’CONNOR – Stockpiles?
Ms RATTRAY – Stockpiles – from soil stockpiles. When you get a mound of dirt.
Ms Webb – Did you say to stop runoff from the stockpiles?
Ms O’Connor – From soil stockpiles.
Madam CHAIR – Order. The Leader has the call to answer the question.
Ms RATTRAY – From soil stockpiles. Apologies if I didn’t get my words out properly. These requirements are currently managed through the Site Environmental Management Plan which will be tabled.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. It’s good to have the Leader for the government confirm that the Environmental Management Plan that I’ve been asking for, for most of the evening, will be tabled. That is something –
Ms RATTRAY – I did say I’d do my best.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. I note that. Thank you, Leader for the government.
We’ve just had the Leader for the government state that there will be monitoring and measures taken to prevent runoff from materials that contain contaminants that are in stockpiles on the site. What I’m trying to get to the bottom of here, on behalf of the people I represent, is how do you prevent the materials in those stockpiles that will be stored on site, presumably, following excavation of contaminated materials, how do you stop contaminants that are stored on site from going into the atmosphere and posing a risk to public health? It’s not enough to say that you will try to do that; what we need to understand is a little bit more of the ‘how’.
Ms RATTRAY – There were examples. The Site Environmental Management Plan sets out further details.
Clause 14 considered.
Clause 15 – CN3
Ms O’CONNOR – In CN2 on 15, it recognises that there are contaminants on site, and that there needs to be:
… a management plan for contaminated sites that provides for the prevention, minimisation and control of potential human health and environmental risks associated with subsurface contamination and acid sulphate soils …
which we know historically are thick in the River Derwent because of industrial processes including at Nyrstar and the Boyer mill, and those acid sulphate soils are safe in the sediments when they’re not disturbed. When they reach the water –
Madam CHAIR – Order. I’m trying to understand where you’re at. What you seem to be referring to is not in clause 15.
Ms O’CONNOR – Clause 14.
Madam CHAIR – We’ve dealt with 14. You had three calls on 14.
Ms O’CONNOR – That’s alright. Well, I’d ask basically the same question in 15, because it also deals with contaminants on the site.
Ms Thomas – No.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, it’s about approval by the director of the EPA in writing, that works can’t be performed on the project land during those hours. Presumably, some of those works –
Mr Duigan – Question?
Ms O’CONNOR – What?
Mr Duigan – A question?
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Ms O’CONNOR – You haven’t asked a single question.
Madam CHAIR – I’m in charge of the Chamber, thank you. I don’t appreciate your intervention. You can direct your comments through me.
Ms O’CONNOR – I know you’re getting tired –
Mr Duigan – I’m good as gold.
Madam CHAIR – Order.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you. In terms of the remediation works on the site that can only be conducted within certain hours, what is the government’s plan for dealing with contaminants on site, including acid sulphate soils? Will those contaminants be dealt with only between the hours of 7 a.m and 6 p.m. on working days and 8.a.m. and 6.p.m on Saturday or Sunday? Again, how does the proponent propose to protect public health while it’s doing those works? I still really don’t have any answers on that.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, this question may well be answered with the plan that I’m going to get. It’s 200 pages, so it’s just taking a bit of time to print. In the interest of the honourable member being able to have that plan –
Madam CHAIR – We can’t though, we have to deal with this clause.
Ms RATTRAY – Oh, we have to deal with that clause. Thank you.
Madam CHAIR – If there is a question you need to answer. Please answer it.
Ms O’Connor – Tonight?
Madam CHAIR – As you see fit. When we’ve dealt with this clause, we will take a break.
Ms RATTRAY – There will be compliance with what the EPA requests.
Ms O’Connor – And if there’s not?
Madam CHAIR – That’s the document you’re tabling, is that correct?
Ms RATTRAY – That’s a matter for the EPA, and they’re the ones that have the penalties.
Clause 15 considered.
Schedule 5 considered.
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I move –
That we report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The sitting was suspended from 9.50 p.m. until 10.16 p.m.
STATE POLICIES AND PROJECTS (MACQUARIE POINT PRECINCT) ORDER 2025 (No. 49)
In Committee
Resumed from above.
Clauses 16 and 17 considered.
Clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21 considered.
Clauses 22, 23, 24 and 25 considered.
Clauses 26, 27 and 28 considered.
Schedule 6 considered.
Schedule 7 – Hobart City Council Conditions
Clauses 1 and 2 considered.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 considered.
Clause 6 considered.
Clause 7 – ENG3
Ms O’CONNOR – Just so I’m certain that I’m in the right part of the order, is this Part 3 – Stormwater, clause 7? This provides for any stormwater on site:
… must be drained to a lawful point of discharge into the public stormwater system before whichever of the following occurs first:
(a) the Stadium is occupied for the first time;
(b) the Stadium is used for the first time.
Can the Leader of the government flesh out this clause a bit more on why it was determined that it was required for the order, and how much of an issue is stormwater likely to be on the site?
Ms RATTRAY – These are standard Hobart City Council conditions. As I said, they’ve not been amended in any way, shape or form from what the Hobart City Council presented.
Clause 7 considered.
Clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 considered.
Clause 12 -SW4
Ms O’CONNOR – This is a provision which effectively prohibits the works of the stadium from having an adverse impact on the beautiful little Hobart Rivulet. Noting that there’s a significant chance that the works will have an adverse impact on the Hobart Rivulet, how can the proponent be sure that the provisions within Part 5 – Construction Management will not have an adverse impact on the Hobart Rivulet, and what happens if they do?
Ms RATTRAY – I will seek advice.
As set out in the order, an assessment will be undertaken on the Hobart Rivulet and structure, and this will inform the construction management plan and vibration monitoring.
Ms O’Connor – What happens if there is an impact? Which is part of my question –
Madam CHAIR – If no one is on their feet, if someone would like to take the call? Member for Nelson.
Ms WEBB – Much as I’m sure that the management plan is going to be duly done, if something does happen to the rivulet, who is responsible for remediating any damage that’s caused? Is it the proponent here of the project, or is it Hobart City Council?
Ms RATTRAY – The MPDC will be responsible, and they will work with the Hobart City Council for any remediation works that are required.
Clause 12 considered.
Clause 13 – SW5
Ms O’CONNOR – The TPC’s Final Integrated Assessment Report at page 140 says:
… at this stage, it appears that the Project will not comply with the Water Quality Policy, which in part states that authorities must require that stormwater controls are specifically addressed at the design phase of proposals for new developments, and ensure that best practice environmental management is implemented.
Can the Leader for government confirm that these provisions within the order are an acknowledgement that the project as it is now, does not comply with the water quality policy in that those stormwater issues have not been addressed in the design phase of the proposal?
Ms RATTRAY – The Macquarie Point Development Corporation is developing the plan and at this stage they have no reason to believe that they won’t comply.
Ms O’CONNOR – Again, in the Integrated Assessment Report, page 139 states:
The permit conditions proposed by the Proponent do not require achievement of stormwater discharge targets established by the State Stormwater Strategy and do not require water quality treatment to be offset via a cost contribution.
Has anything changed since the TPC released its report in September this year? Why do the permit conditions proposed by the proponent not require the achievement of stormwater discharge targets under the State Stormwater Strategy?
Ms RATTRAY – These are Hobart City Council conditions, and they will be required to be complied with. They’ve set the rules, these are their rules, and they will be complied with.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, for that answer. Given the TPC noted that the permit conditions proposed by the proponent didn’t meet the requirements of the State Stormwater Strategy, is the Leader for government saying that they won’t leave the State Stormwater Strategy even once the stormwater infrastructure is in place? Is it the proponent’s intention to comply with the State Stormwater Strategy, notwithstanding that these permit conditions we’re told, have been put forward by Hobart City Council?
Ms RATTRAY – I will seek advice.
Madam Chair, the proponent will comply with the requirements and continue to design to meet the targets in the strategy. That’s a definite.
Ms O’CONNOR – Is that my last?
Madam CHAIR – You’ve had three calls, honourable member.
Clause 13 considered.
Clause 14 – SW6
Ms O’CONNOR – This is this clause requires that:
… stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces within the Project land must be treated and discharged from the land using Water Sensitive Urban Design principles to achieve …
and here’s the kicker:
… as far as is practicable, the stormwater quality and quantity targets specified in the State Stormwater Strategy published by the EPA.
Can the Leader for government confirm that there’s no requirement or necessarily even intention on the part of the project developer to meet the stormwater quality and quantity targets specified in the State Stormwater Strategy?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, my last answer was that the proponent would meet the requirements. I cannot say it any more clearly than that. I can read it again, but it’s too late in the night.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, it’s terrific to hear that it’s the proponent’s intention to meet the stormwater quality and quantity targets. However, the fact is this provision and this order don’t require it. Really what I’m asking here is whether or not the proponent feels, given the provision in this clause, that it’s only required to achieve ‘as far as is practicable’. That means as much as it can, or that it feels that it can in a cost effective way, which I’m sure will be a consideration and that’s been acknowledged by the TPC. Can the Leader for government confirm there’s no requirement in this order for the project in dealing with stormwater to achieve the targets in the State Stormwater Strategy which is published by the Environment Protection Authority?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, the Hobart City Council –
Ms O’Connor – That’s not the question.
Ms RATTRAY – Yes, it is because 14.(1) clearly says that, and these are the Hobart City Council compliance requirements. So it does say it. I’ve already said that the proponent will comply with the requirements and continue to design to meet the targets in the strategy. I can’t be any clearer than that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms WEBB – Madam Chair, given that there’s obviously more design to be done before we know what the fully completed stormwater design will be, is there a way when it is finalised that we could see the degree to which it meets – or doesn’t – the stormwater strategy? Is that going to be reported on, or noted, or is there some way we can be scrutinising the extent of that in a public way so we will understand where we landed in terms of ‘as is practicable’?
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I believe you will be interested in this. The proponent will do compliance reporting regularly, including to the PAC Committee.
Ms WEBB – Are we to understand, then, that it’s a compliance requirement that it meets the stormwater strategy and that will be then reported on at the final design stage when we know about stormwater design? There will be an explicit reporting of compliance against that strategy through to the PAC, or will that only happen if it’s requested by PAC?
Ms RATTRAY – I will seek advice to clarify the answer on that, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, this will be part of regular compliance reporting by the proponent. Unless the Hobart City Council conditions are met, works will not be able to continue or, in some cases, commence.
Clause 14 considered.
Clauses 15, 16, 17, 18,19 and 20 considered.
Schedule 7 considered.
Schedule 8 – Enforcement of Conditions
Madam CHAIR – Honourable member for Hobart, are you happy to take the whole of Schedule 8 as one item? It’s a number of –
Ms O’CONNOR – I have a number of questions here. I may have more than three questions, which is my concern.
Madam CHAIR – We can call individual numbers. I will get the Deputy Clerk to call them in groups of five and if you have one within that group, then you can let us know the number. Deputy Clerk, I will go five at a time, please.
Item 1 –
Ms O’CONNOR – I’m happy to treat that group –
Madam CHAIR – We need a number. We need to do them individually.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay. Let’s start with ‘Compliance with plans’, number 1. What it would be good to understand here, given that this is the enforcement of conditions scheduled, holistically, as a first question, I’d like to understand in each instance here who is the planning authority? Which is the agency responsible for enforcement, because it says ‘planning authority’ repeatedly, other than for the director of the EPA, the director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council, the director of the EPA and TasWater.
In every other circumstance, whether it’s compliance with plans, patron limits for specific events, the staging plan, it’s described as ‘planning authority’. Can we have some more clarity on which agency is responsible for enforcement. Given that Council will continue to have planning authority responsibilities, who will be responsible for liaising with 23 different state delegates to ensure they’re adequately monitoring and acting on the conditions in the various plans? So an understanding of who the planning authorities are, but also the monitoring and coordination of those entities.
Ms RATTRAY – The Hobart City Council is the planning authority – I thought that would probably be the case – and the draft MOU with the council contemplates authorising the Department of State Growth for limited enforcement for some conditions. I’m happy to read out what they are. I won’t read the whole thing, I will just read the condition because all members have them in front of them: A1, B2, B7, B15, C3 and C4, C5, D1, D5, D7, D8, D10, D11, D12 and D13. So that’s the entire list of conditions that –
Ms O’Connor – Of delegations, you mean?
Ms RATTRAY – Limited enforcement.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay, we’ve just established again that the Department of State Growth and the secretary of the Department of State Growth will have –
Madam CHAIR – We’re dealing with compliance with plans. Item 1.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, we are, for ensuring compliance with plans. In terms of compliance with plans and the fact that those plans cover environmental management and construction management, if there’s a breach of condition within the plans, who will take and pay for the legal costs associated with compliance action against the council for not fulfilling its obligations under LUPAA, even though a plan with conditions may have been approved by the secretary of the Department of State Growth?
Ms RATTRAY – If the state has enforcement responsibilities, any action to require enforcement would be taken against the state and not the council. The council, however, retains enforcement authority for all conditions, so it can step in if required.
Item 1 considered.
Item 2 –
Ms O’CONNOR – Given that there’s a delegation under the MOU with council that’s being developed that delegates planning authority powers to a significant extent to the secretary of the Department of State Growth, how will the government, the proponent, manage potential conflicts of interest – and I did ask this question before, and it hasn’t been answered – when you have the secretary of the Department of State Growth being an employee under the State Service of the government, who is the proponent and the developer and the regulator – a quite extraordinary structure – how do you manage the conflicts of interest?
How do you make sure that the secretary of State Growth is not conflicted because of their position as a State Service employee, and what steps are to be put in place to manage the conflicts of interest so that the public interest can be protected, given the significance of this project, the level of resistance to it in the community I represent, and the concern about its consequence for the heritage precinct of Sullivans Cove and the Cenotaph?
Ms RATTRAY – Item 2, A5, which is ‘patrons limited for specific events’, is the Hobart City Council responsibility. Those arrangements are no different to those that exist at local government level.
Ms O’Connor – Let’s go, then, to Item 3. In those provisions –
Madam CHAIR – No, we have to call each one separately. Sit down – if you could resume your seat. Because you made a decision we wanted to go through these item by item, we need to deal with each one. If there aren’t any you have questions on, we will call them and let them go.
Item 2 considered.
Item 3 –
Ms O’CONNOR – Can the Leader for the government confirm that the planning authority delegated under the MOU that’s being drafted for the staging plan – is that the secretary of the Department of State Growth?
Ms Rattray – Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – From recollection, there has to be at least some level of consultation with the Environment Protection Authority. I put the question to you, which I know you’ve heard before: given that the planning authority in that case will be the secretary of the Department of State Growth, what is the structure for managing conflicts of interest in relation to that position, given that the government and its employees make up the proponent, the developer and the regulator?
There will be significant conflicts involved here, because the secretary of the Department of State Growth is also on the steering committee that’s been set up under the AFL contract, and also on the governance and oversight body which has been set up under a different provision.
This structure and these delegations are rife with potentials for conflicts and for not giving frank and fearless advice. How will that be managed, given the consequence of this project for the people of Hobart?
Ms RATTRAY – I have an answer coming.
The Hobart City Council will authorise an officer in DSG to be responsible for the enforcement of the conditions and not the secretary of State Growth. This is also how it’s managed in local government.
Ms O’Connor – Do you want to address the conflict-of-interest question, or do you want me to get up and ask it again?
Madam CHAIR – Order.
s O’Connor – Third time, could be lucky.
Madam CHAIR – Does the honourable Leader have any further answer?
Ms RATTRAY – That does address the conflict-of-interest issue.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will ask another question on provision 3, notwithstanding the fact that the Hobart City Council can delegate responsibility to an employee of State Growth and not the secretary, it actually amplifies the concern about frank and fearless advice not being given by someone who doesn’t have the power of the secretary; it amplifies concerns about conflict of interest. Having a framework in place to manage conflict of interest is just good governance. It’s not something we do particularly well down here, but it is just good governance.
Perhaps to close off the debate tonight in your contribution, honourable Leader, you can explain to Council how many potential conflicts of interest that are contained with and provided for in this order will be effectively managed so that, to whatever extent is possible given this order, the public interest is at least considered.
Ms RATTRAY – I might have the answer here from a previous time. Every employee of the State Service is required to act with care and diligence under the State Service Act 2000, and I’ve already read out what section that was of the State Service Act 2000, if I recall, about five hours ago.
Ms O’CONNOR – With respect, honourable Leader, what I asked for was not the obligations under the State Service Act, but what governance framework is in place to deal with perceived or certain conflicts of interest? It’s a very different question to the answer that you gave, to a question I didn’t ask.
What is the governance framework around mitigating the risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest given that the government, its employees and its non public financial corporations are the proponent, the developer and the regulator? Will there be a process of declaring conflicts at the beginning of meetings? What is the framework for managing almost certain conflicts?
Ms RATTRAY – The answer to this was outlined in the governance oversight framework. That was supplied to members, from memory, last Wednesday, so all members would have a copy of that. Yes, there is a process for conflict, and in the State Service Code of Conduct, section 9(8):
An employee must disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest in connection with the employee’s State Service employment.
Ms WEBB – I’d like to try to wrap that one up a bit if we could. Pointing us to the governance oversight framework is fine. I’m just checking – have we tabled that as part of this debate? If we haven’t, could we please table it? While we were given it last week, and we all have it in our possession somewhere, members of the public who might interact with this debate at a later date as a matter of public record won’t necessarily have access to it.
Ms RATTRAY – It’s on the website.
Ms WEBB – At some point, it might not be on a website or might not as readily be able to be found on a website. That happens quite frequently with government documents and departmental documents. Let’s see if we can table the governance framework.
Madam CHAIR – Can I clarify with the Leader – while you’re on your feet, member for Nelson – was that document you are referring to tabled in this House?
Ms Rattray – No.
Madam CHAIR – Can we table it now, I believe, is the member for Nelson’s question.
Ms WEBB – Yes, thank you. Can we table the document now?
For the record, I believe this is an important question. It is a probity question and it isn’t the same as the question of just the broad conflict-of-interest requirements of the public service. It’s a more complex question than that.
Madam CHAIR – I will let the Leader answer the questions.
[10.55 p.m.]
Ms RATTRAY – Madam Chair, I seek leave to table a document titled The Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Governance, Oversight and Assurance Framework, November 2025, Version 2.0.
Leave granted.
Paper tabled.
Items 3 to 29, inclusive, considered.
Ms O’Connor – Last chance, Luke, ask a question. Last chance.
Madam CHAIR – Order. I will not have that interaction across the Chamber, particularly this hour of the night. I urge members to show better self-control and restraint on both sides and a bit of respect for the Chair.
Schedule 8 considered.
Order considered.
The State Policies and Projects (Macquarie Point Precinct) Order 2025 (No. 49) reported as considered.
