Ms O’CONNOR question to MINISTER for HOUSING and PLANNING, Mr VINCENT
Minister, the Monday night before last, George Town Council approved the second Firmus AI data centre despite strong community opposition and unanswered questions over energy and water source and consumption. Questions, by the way, your ministerial colleagues couldn’t answer in the other place this morning. Minister, if the people of George Town were angry before, they’re furious now because they feel, and quite reasonably so, that they were ignored. Councillors who approved the project said they had no choice. Only one voted against the Bell Bay data centre. They clearly felt they did have a choice. Minister, do you agree there is something wrong with the planning rules when councils become a rubber stamp for data centres despite the overwhelming opposition of the local community or are you satisfied with the way the planning system is working in relation to these developments?
ANSWER
I thank the member for her question. It’s obviously a topical subject at the moment. The planning scheme is quite strong around everything that needs to happen and there is a clear path for a developer to put in an application to a council and have it processed. For councillors to say that they had no choice is not correct; they operate as two different spheres. One is on behalf of the community as a councillor, but they also wear a totally separate hat as a planning scheme administrator to run that system, and that is part of their role. To say there is no communication, that is wrong. All the way through the planning scheme, people who object or have different thoughts or passions about a project or, in many cases, people who wish to support a project, all have ample opportunity to do so. That has been applied through the council and always has been. We’ve been part of that process many times ourselves and sometimes councillors don’t feel comfortable making those decisions, but the proponent put up an application to the council and it was assessed and, yes, there are people who have different thoughts on it, but it went through the process. If councillors wish to make comment on that that is their prerogative, but there is a very good system and a very strong system for all applications that need to go through council and that process.
Yes, I do believe the planning scheme is strong enough and that there are levels of communication that everybody can feel confident about happening. Thank you, Mr President.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you, minister, for your answer. I challenge you on your statement that everyone should feel confident about the operation of the planning system in relation to AI data centre approvals. It is unarguable that there are communities, particularly across the north and north‑west of Tasmania, whose confidence in the planning system to protect their interests, to protect our energy and water supplies, is diminishing as a result of your government’s wholesale adoption of the AI data centre agenda. Can you explain, minister, to your mind, how much weight does the community’s voice have in relation to these developments? Because of course there’s a third DA that’s about to go in for Wesley Vale. So, will the Wesley Vale community now be completely ignored under the planning system rules?
ANSWER
Thank you, Mr President. I reject the bit that we’re ignoring anybody in the system or the planning system is ignoring anybody. It is there; it is a solid system for everybody to use as they see fit. Just because there is some opposition to this ‑
Ms O’Connor – Very strong opposition.
Mr VINCENT – as there sometimes is, that is just part of the process that a planning system has been involved. I’d rather see that strength going through council and that community having conversations about that than seeing things just automatically come into a political situation – that does not make good planning at all either. We do understand, though, that there are many changing facets that are happening all the time with the types of projects we need to look at now. That is why we’re trying to look at the planning system to see what needs to be changed. That’s a constant evolution.
We’re just going through the process at the moment with the land use strategies and urban growth boundaries, and then there’s residential standards associated with that and all other ways of doing amendments that’ll be coming before this House at some stage. But we’re constantly looking at ways of doing things differently. That’s why I welcome the federal government’s guidelines that they’re working through and looking at now, and why I also welcome input from the lower House into looking at data factories.
It is something that there is obviously a lot of passion around. That does not mean that people are upset with the process; that the system is wrong. It is regarded as a very strong planning system. Yes, there are interpretations of it that sometimes lead us all into levels of frustration, but it’s too easy to blame the planning system instead of looking at it holistically that there is a very good system there for people to use.
Ms O’Connor – Who should they blame?
