Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I will make a brief contribution on the Tasmanian Development Amendment Bill. I could not find a single thing that I disagreed with in the four previous speakers on this bill.
In the other place, the Greens did not oppose the bill on its way through the second reading and Committee, but, we have very serious concerns about how we came to be in this position. We are debating a bill that – as the member for Launceston reminded us all – is dealing with public money that came about as a result of an election promise that has not been consulted, and will have an impact on the Budget.
Our understanding – from a briefing that our spokesperson for trade and economic development, Cecily Rosol MP, attended before the bill went into the House of Assembly – was that she asked for the reasons behind the 250 per cent increase under section 9(2)(d), which increases the cap on government equity investment from $10 million to $35 million, which is a startling jump; a 250 per cent increase. Ms Rosol asked if this increase had been requested by a private business or if the government had a specific project in mind when they settled on this amount. We are advised that this increase was a Liberal election promise that was made specifically to enable the development of the Launceston Health Hub. This sets a precedent. I have no doubt at all that the Launceston Health Hub would deliver tangible positive community benefit.
That is not the issue here. The issue is how we came to be debating a bill which so fundamentally changes the numbers.
Ms Forrest – Are there others that we do not know about?
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, ‘are there others?’, the member for Murchison asks. Have other promises been made? Was it one of those situations where – having been asked by one private developer whether there was some capacity to increase the threshold for acquiring an increase in a business undertaking – did the Liberals then go, ‘actually, here is a vehicle for us to promise other businesses, particularly in key electorates, that we will change the administrative provisions within the Tasmanian Development Amendment Bill’.
It is interesting that when industry wants something, when business wants something here, the government is able to act very quickly. We are seeing it with the proposed changes to the State Coastal Policy, which came about in significant part because the Robbins Island developer lobbied for those changes. We are seeing changes to the Tasmanian Development Amendment Bill. We see it very often where, in order to provide a better operating arrangement for businesses, government can act very quickly, but if you want to talk to them about, for example, what their powers are to regulate short-stay accommodation so people have an affordable rental in nipaluna/Hobart, it falls completely on deaf ears. In part that is because a number of Liberal government ministers own short-stay properties. When you are trying to push government –
Mrs Hiscutt interjecting.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, it is true, Leader. It is true and we have raised it before. When you push government to do something which is manifestly in the broad public interest, and that is reform the Integrity Commission, we are told it will take at least a year longer despite the fact that we know the case has been made for reform going back at least eight years.
Having said all of that, we do not oppose this bill, but the questions that have been asked by experienced members are serious questions. I hope that the Leader of the Government has some very good answers to those questions. It is right for the Council to ask why we are in this position. It is right to, on behalf of the people we represent, be offended and insulted by a five‑day consultation period. It is right to question what the modelling is for this set of numbers – or were they, in fact, pulled out of some minister’s backside?
It feels like that, because there has been no clear, cogent argument made by government for this set of numbers so substantially increasing the capacity for the Tasmanian Development Corporation to hand out money and loans. It is very serious that we have a set of numbers that have so dramatically increased the provisions that are in the act. I look forward to hearing the other contributions and the response from the Leader of the Government.
I do not know if this is one of those matters that could be examined by one of the parliamentary committees. I do not know if this is something that could come before the Public Accounts Committee, for example, given the size of the numbers that we are looking at. It is something that may require some further scrutiny. I look forward to hearing what the answers to the questions that have been asked are.
