Mr BAYLEY question to MINISTER for PARKS and ENVIRONMENT, Mr DUIGAN
To provide retrospective approval for a development that would otherwise be refused because it contravenes the State Coastal Policy, you have released a draft bill for consultation before tabling it in this place. In opening, the website promoting that consultation says:
The State Coastal Policy 1996 is a critically important part of the state’s resource management and planning system and has served the state well in protecting the coast and providing for sustainable development.
Despite serving the state well, in May, you announced the need to change the coastal policy based on advice you had received. We in the community have repeatedly called for this advice, or a summary, to be released. People have till 5.00 p.m. this Thursday to comment on your plan to retrospectively approve a development that will benefit a multinational company, but they have not seen the legal or planning justification.
Who gave you the advice that an internationally owned development should receive special legislated, retrospective approval, and will you release it so the public are informed?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the member for the question. The Tasmanian government supports a balanced and a sensible approach to developments that benefit Tasmania while protecting our coastlines and our very important environmental values. As we have previously said, a recent legal view has brought into question the way planning authorities have applied the State Coastal Policy to developments.
That is why the government has acted. It is entirely appropriate for the government to sort this and bring some clarity to this position. The draft legislation released recently for consultation will remove uncertainties around existing and approved coastal infrastructure. It simply seeks to validate previous decisions made by planning authorities and the civil and administrative tribunals which may offend –
Mr Bayley – We know what it will do, minister. We are asking for the advice.
Ms Finlay – Well then, you know that it is not about a single project.
The SPEAKER – I remind Ms Finlay that she was not asked the question. The minister was. I am very happy for this to be a substantive debate for another part of the day, but both Mr Bayley and Ms Finlay will allow the minister to answer. Yelling across the Chamber at each other is not okay.
Mr DUIGAN – As I say, this is to seek to provide some clarity about things which may offend state coastal policy in relation to development on actively mobile landforms, and this is to avoid legal challenge and remove any doubt concerning the validity of those permits. It is ensuring that planning permits for existing coastal infrastructure, such as boardwalks, fencings, lookouts, boat‑launching facilities, bridges, jetties, golf courses – you name it – remain valid. This is incredibly important to protect our Tasmanian way of life, and it does not change coastal policy itself.
I would point you to comments made by University of Tasmania senior law lecturer, Dr Rachel Baird, who has been reported widely in the ABC this week as saying the government’s legislation was, ‘A pretty well‑measured response to provide certainty to the Tasmanian economy’. Dr Baird’s comments also support what the government has been saying, that it is not, ‘Changing the assessment process by any means. With all projects –
The SPEAKER – Minister, I will try and draw you to the question in the 30 seconds you have left.
Mr Bayley – Will you release the advice?
The SPEAKER – Members of the Greens will stop interjecting. I have called the minister to the question.
Mr DUIGAN – Thank you, Speaker. Regarding the advice, I understand that is legal advice and, as you would understand, that advice remains privileged.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Mr BAYLEY – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Mr BAYLEY – I heard the minister say in his answers that it is a recent legal view and that is why they are taking this action. He mentioned that the legal advice is privileged, but it is entirely up to the Attorney-General to approve that. Again, will he release that advice? It is within your government’s power to do that. Will he release the advice?
The SPEAKER – That went far over the 30 seconds allowed for a supplementary question, but I will ask the minister to address that because it did relate to the answer the minister gave. He may wish to send it to the Attorney-General. That is a matter for him. Actually, sorry, you cannot. You have to answer it. Apologies, it is the new rule. I call the minister.
Mr DUIGAN – Honourable Speaker, I reiterate the appropriateness of the government’s actions in this space to remove doubt that exists in this important area. In regard to the advice, my information is that it is privileged.
Dr Woodruff – You’re wrong.
The SPEAKER – The minister is quite rightly resuming his seat and the Leader of the Greens will not yell out, ‘You’re wrong’. In fact, out of interest, the words of interruption that, if used in moderation, are not unparliamentary are: ‘Question’, ‘Order, order’, ‘Hear, hear’ or ‘Divide’. ‘You’re wrong’ is not one of them.
