Mr BAYLEY – Minister, the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme has height limits for development on Macquarie Point and key sightlines from the Cenotaph are explicitly named and provided protection via criteria. Are you aware of this and do you accept that the purpose of those provisions is to protect the values of the Cenotaph and its reverential ambience from development?
Mr BARNETT – Thanks very much for the question. Yes, I am aware of the process that you outlined. I’m also aware of the Project of State Significant process and the need to go through that process. The Macquarie Point Development Corporation has made that submission and it will be assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and then subject to further consultation. What I am very keen to ensure is ongoing meaningful engagement with RSL Tasmania and other veteran organisations and the interests of veterans to ensure that we protect and promote them wherever possible.
Mr BAYLEY – You’re aware of those protections for the values of the Cenotaph? You’re also aware, I’m sure, the Projects of State Significance dispenses with LUPAA, the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, and with it, longstanding protections like those for the sightlines and reverential ambience are also gone. They’re no longer enshrined in law. A decision on the stadium and whether or not it will affect those values is at the discretion of a panel that’s been stood up as part of the Project of State Significance process.
The application for the stadium must still report against those values, but nothing compels it for protection. Nothing compels the panel to make a ruling based on the need to protect those values. Do you think this is fair?
A stadium at 54‑metres high has now been shown to completely obliterate three important sightlines and the cultural heritage values. The assessment itself, as part of the Macquarie Point development application, describes the impacts on the Cenotaph and the cultural landscape as very high. Do you think this is fair and, acknowledging your work in the veteran space, how can you tolerate this? How do you think this is acceptable to veterans?
Mr BARNETT – Thank you very much for the question. In answering the question, I note the Greens’ opposition to the Macquarie Point Development Corporation development at Macquarie Point has been consistent and I think is the motivation behind your questions and your objectives. That should be acknowledged. I certainly note and acknowledge that at least you’ve been consistent, unlike perhaps some other parties. I also acknowledge that various sightlines are impacted and I’m pleased that the RSL Tasmania were given access to those sightlines because they were interested in them and it was important that they had access to that.
Mr BAYLEY – Do you acknowledge they’re lost completely – three of them are lost completely?
Mr BARNETT – I do acknowledge that there’s been an impact on a number of the sightlines, but also that there is an opportunity to recognise, honour, promote, and support our veterans in the development of the precinct, and that’s the point of having meaningful ongoing engagement with RSL and other veterans.
Mr BAYLEY – If you acknowledge the impact, do you think the Planning Commission should reject the proposal?
Mr BARNETT – The important thing about the Tasmanian Planning Commission is and the Project of State Significance process is that there’s an opportunity for both houses of parliament to have their say and it must go through that process. It needs to be democratic and there needs to be a view expressed by both houses of parliament as to whether the project proceeds.
Mr BAYLEY – What will you do, minister, if the Planning Commission rejects the stadium on the basis of a range of factors, potentially including the impact on the Cenotaph?
CHAIR – Last question, then Ms Johnston.
Mr BARNETT – I can’t pre‑empt the Tasmanian Planning Commission. That’s a matter for them and what they do is a matter for them.
