Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Deputy Speaker, I thank the previous speakers for their eloquent and important contributions, including Ms Rosol, Ms Haddad and Mr Jenner, because a lot of those points were about the importance of wellbeing for youth in detention, which is such an important underpinning requirement. I am sure that the minister has that in mind.
I acknowledge that youth who are in detention facilities or justice facilities have quite often, nine times out of ten, come from traumatic backgrounds, and they rely on the state to protect them.
I acknowledge that the minister organised a briefing session that I attended with Ms Rosol, and I thank the various departments who were at that briefing and also at the public consultation, the second session of which I attended last week. That was on the draft master plan, and whilst that was open to the public – it ran for a couple of hours and was the second information session – it was right at the end of the day, so I had concerns raised with me that it was not accessible to many people who would have liked to have attended. This was according to people who were there and who had neighbours who could not get there.
I think having enabling legislation introduced and running a public consultation process at the same time has a raft of problems. We should not be rushing such important legislation. This seems to be a repeating pattern of the government in relation to not giving the community enough time to really prosecute arguments that they intend to put forward.
Minister Jaensch’s second reading speech makes this all out to be fast‑tracking for a new youth justice facility, however this is like putting lipstick on a pig. Minister Jaensch is doing nothing more than dancing to Minister for Planning, Felix Ellis’, tune on destroying, yet again, Tasmania’s planning system, and I think this is a fundamental thing. Ms Rosol has said that there are two elements to this bill before us. There is the delivery of a youth justice facility, but make no mistake, this is an undermining of Tasmanian’s planning system, yet again, by this government.
In the name of fast‑tracking a youth justice facility development, every part of this bill dismantles how planning is done in Tasmania. It removes natural justice; it denies people’s right to be heard, especially direct and near neighbours; and it takes away important checks and balances that this parliament has established previously. There were concerns and, as Ms Rosol said, we got a bundle of information this morning, the day that we are considering this bill, which just screams at you to say, ‘What are you hiding? Why do you do this? Why do you just provide this bundle of information right at the last minute?’ It really says, as far as I am concerned, ‘We do not want you to scrutinise things properly.’
There were concerns raised by the Southern Midlands Council, which is the planning authority that will be considering this youth justice facility. Brighton City Council are also a key player in this, because part of the land that we are considering here is in the Brighton municipality – a driveway off Rifle Range Road, which will be a new entrance. Academics have written to the minister concerned about both planning and administrative law and how that might be eroded.
As I said, it removes natural justice; it denies people’s right to be heard, especially direct and near neighbours; and it takes away important checks and balances that this parliament has established previously. I spoke to neighbours and I, like Mr Jenner, was out at the site. The site has been chosen, and I will ask a question of the minister in a moment in relation to that, but the site is, if not adjacent to, very close to a cannabis processing and growing facility. It is close to a gun club. It is close to Shene Road, which is where Lark Distillery is now located.
It is a very historic, important heritage place. Wybra Hall was a famous place where young people, mainly males, I believe, were sent for detention from 1955 to 1985. That is very close to this proposed facility.
If you want a checklist of how to dismantle the rules that govern Tasmanian planning, you need look no further than this bill. Mr Jaensch talks of how we need to fast‑track this, just as we had to fast‑track special enabling legislation for a shopping centre development at Stony Rise.
Others have already spoken to it, but I will talk about the timeline. In 2021 the commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse in institutional settings was established. In late 2021, the closure of Ashley was announced, and it was going to be closed by 2024. It was later shifted to 2026. Can the minister tell us when Ashley will now close?
There was then a scout around for flat Crown land, close to Hobart, as I understand. Can the minister explain what stipulations there were about what land was suitable and why the purchase of land, such as there was for Brighton High School, which is a very successful project, was not considered?
In 2023, this site was selected and in 2025, ironically, we saw the introduction of this fast‑tracking legislation. The delivery of the build is touted for 2027 and in 2028, four years later than promised, it is proposed that this southern facility will open.
This bill does nothing to hide the sins of the past or to deliver the project on time. We do not have a time. We do not know that this bill will make it any faster than going through standard planning processes. We have evidence that this government’s is woeful at delivering most projects on time and on budget, not least something as important as treating youth well in the justice system. What could be more important?
While I am in no doubt that the government has heeded what is required for changes, will we definitely see the estimated 70 staff, which will be instrumental in making this facility work? Some will be allied health professionals, mental health and custodial specialists, with teaching staff required for the maximum of 16 young people. Staff shortages currently plague many professions and job cuts could be another reason for not delivering the care required. I was told that the ratio of staff to youth will be two to one. This is important, as are those learning facilities. All of these things would help fulfil the requirements of improving the life of the young people.
I want to know about the process of choosing the site. The site, with six direct neighbours, near a cannabinoid growing and processing facility, within earshot of three gun clubs on Shene Road, may contribute to trauma for those who have often come from traumatic situations. I spoke to a planner from Brighton Council who said there are times of the day when the smell from the cannabinoid processing facility travels quite some way. From that facility, it goes right down to the Brighton village or up to Tea Tree, depending on the wind and inversion. When the outdoor crop is growing and harvested, there is significant smell. What has been considered in relation to the impact on not only the young people there but also people working in the proposed facility?
I also want to know whether the impact of the gun club has been considered. Can we guarantee there will be no impact on the youth detained in the facility?
I now want to talk more specifically to the bill and all the concerns the Greens have in relation to this. First, the fast-track legislation denies natural justice. We had a letter from the general manager of Brighton City Council, James Dryburgh, who raised those concerns about undermining the confidence in the planning system and disregarding the principles of natural justice. Those are significant things. Mr Dryburgh is a planner by trade and has been involved in the land use strategy, so he would know full well the difficulties. Working to deliver strategic planning in this state is something I talk about frequently.
This fast-tracking legislation denies natural justice with zero evidence it will deliver the project any earlier. We cannot say that this will be any faster. The Tasmanian planning system has one of the quickest turnarounds across the nation. The amendment about elements that are prohibited is a red herring. The facility itself is not prohibited in the planning scheme, so perhaps the minister can clarify what he means in relation to this amendment.
The Southern Midlands Council planning authority is to consider this development application. The government has clearly decided not to go down the Major Projects or Project of State Significance pathway. You probably did not want to go near the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Could the minister explain why this was not considered as a robust approach if changes to planning considerations are occurring which will impact the Southern Midlands Council and its role as a planning authority?
There are six neighbours and others who may want to put in representations. There is nothing stopping them putting in representations, but having a say, having ownership ‑ consultation is so important for important project. It is better to have people with you rather than in fear of what may be proposed. I always think good consultation, saying, ‘We have nothing to hide here’, is more appropriate, and having that consultation early is always better. The consultation sessions were around the draft master plan, rather than the individual planning application. There is concern about that.
Mr Fairs raised the issue about consultation with the Aboriginal community. It would be good to know how that consultation occurred and what sort of input from which Aboriginal groups were considered as part of that consultation.
Getting back to the Southern Midlands Council as the planning authority, it will only be able to approve with or without conditions and, as far as I understand, not refuse because it is not a prohibited use. Could the minister talk more to the amendment about that prohibited use versus having to approve something with or without conditions and then no appeal process or no appeal rights for representors unless they are the applicant. So, this is a major departure of planning in this state, which is very concerning.
We know that there are more ministerial powers with these changes to the legislation. There is an amendment which, if I am not mistaken, reduces the buffer for those who have that 20-metre buffer, but if there are changes afoot to that 20‑metre buffer, they will have to negotiate with the proponent when there are boundary adjustments. Correct me if I am wrong, minister.
There are erosions of protections of the building code. Again, a dangerous precedent. One of the last things I will say is that this parliament has checks and balances in place, and one of those checks and balances is the Public Works Committee, Public Works process, or taking it to the Public Works Committee, will be abandoned in this process, and that usually looks at publicly funded projects to the value of $15 million or more and it is for this type of development or for other important checks for roads, bridges, schools, but apparently not necessary for a youth detention facility. I do not think that is necessary to take out the public works scrutiny. That is important and, again, this is a very strange way of working.
This should be a parliament that holds this government to account, that provides good legislation, that delivers on what it should, not a phony reason to undermine the planning system. This will do nothing to improve the speed of the delivery of closure of Ashley and a new state-of-the-art facility.
Minister Jaensch, sadly, you are acting like a puppet of minister Ellis by delivering this bill and all that it stands for. Labor backs this in with scant regard for how this erodes the rights of the community, of natural justice and our planning system. I think that we should be questioning much more as a parliament. This is poor legislation and an ongoing attack on the planning system in Tasmania. The Greens will continue to stand up for this insolent, bullish behaviour of government.
