Legislative Council, Wednesday 16 August 2023

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I tend to focus my contribution strongly on the content of the bill as we have many other opportunities to speak about the related matters. I will do an abridged version of some matters the member for Nelson covered as to why we are here. It is relevant to the debate as to why we are seeking to amend this piece of legislation.

In terms of why we are here, there have been many public and some not public airings of the arrangements between the Government and the AFL that go back some time now, including a previous premier and the long standing desire for Tasmania to have its own AFL football team. The majority, with the exception of a small number, in my view, from people I have talked to, support our own team. It is a national competition and reports indicated it would be sustainable. I am not going to go into that any further because it is a matter for another debate, if we ever need to have it.

We are here because the inclusion initially of a purpose built stadium in Hobart became contentious. Sadly, it became a matter of division in our state. In the Public Accounts Committee, we have heard from various parties and as the negotiations, discussions, whatever you would like to call them, continued, somewhere along the line a decision was made in order for Tasmania to be granted an AFL licence and you get the tick-off on the 18 club presidents, we were practically going to be held to ransom. You will build a 23 000-seat roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. It is the Macquarie Point bit in order to get your licence that was one of the major contentious issues for a number of reasons. There is an argument we have at least one really good stadium and ground. The York Park ground is the best playing surface in the country according to the experts. I am not one of those. Also, we understand there are limitations around the Bellerive Oval.

In any event, it was to be a condition of the licence that really incensed a lot of Tasmanians who see it should not be a condition. We deserve and should have our AFL team without such an onerous requirement. It is because of that division we have seen events flow from there. As was spoken about by the member for Nelson, we saw such concern about the openness and transparency about the process, how the decision was made, the cost of it, who was bearing the cost, whether the federal money that has been granted for the urban renewal on Macquarie Point would be used for a stadium on that site or whether it be used for other things. That is debatable, too. When you read a lot of the commentary and the Commonwealth Grants Commission's commentary on that, and you read the federal government's comments, one would argue it is not to be used for a stadium, but the AFL has a very clear view that it will be, and that is what it told PAC in a public hearing.

Mr Valentine - I am waiting for the Government to answer my question on this.

Ms FORREST - Yes, I know. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of conflicting positions on this. I can understand how this has divided our state in a very sad way, in my view. That is, whether you are an AFL footy supporter or not.

For the rest of the season, I am going with the Matildas because my team is nearly at the bottom of the ladder, so I think the Matildas are a really red-hot show and I will stick with them, and good luck to them tonight.

Members - Hear, hear.

Ms FORREST - What a team. What an amazing achievement and a stressful game last Saturday. It was fascinating but very stressful, and I am still recovering from that.

This division and lack of openness and transparency and clarity about the decision-making processes also led, in part, to the resignation of two Liberal members from the team, and that pushed the Government into minority.

The two now Independent members made a number of demands and this has all been publicly reported; one of them was that the proposed stadium be assessed as a project of state significance.

As soon as that was announced, I went to the State Policies and Projects Act and looked to see what this actually means, to be sure. I read it several times because the comments that were made were that it would definitely come back to this House under the current legislation for approval.

When you read through the act, this is why we are here now, but that is not the case. If the government of the day decided to amend the recommendation from the TPC then, yes, it would, regardless of whether it is publicly funded or privately funded or a mixture of both, potentially. If the Government accepts the recommendation as provided from the TPC, it is a done deal, no further involvement.

Obviously, the Premier had a different interpretation of that because that is what he is reported as saying. As we heard in the briefing today, the TPC on their website also had an inaccurate fact sheet. I am sure they regret that now, but that has led us here.

One could argue that when there is such a significant expenditure of public money, whether or not it is contentious, the parliament should have the overall say as to whether that particular project should go ahead or not, even after the assessment.

People talk about sovereign risk. This is taxpayer's money, it is our money. It is what we decide as the elected members for this state what is the best way to spend our money - or the state's money - on any particular project, acknowledging that funding comes from other sources as well, not just state government funding in these circumstances.

I am of a view that we should. This is an entirely appropriate amendment in that regard. Even if this had not have happened, I think it would have come up in the future. When the current act was first brought to the parliament, it was obviously a different view. Probably at that time there were some concerns, perhaps more focused on private enterprise, private businesses coming into the state wanting to invest. We know that a lot of money goes into the planning, the approval process, the assessments that all have to happen, and for some there are many. There is a whole range of heritage, environment, all manner of assessment processes that need to go on. Notionally, that cost should be recovered fully from the assessment from the proponent. Also, you would say that no private proponent in their right mind would spend all that money on the risk that the parliament might say, well yes, the planning process through the Project of State Significance assessment says it is all good to go, but no, we do not think so. There is some concern about that.

I note, and I appreciate the briefing, Leader, and the commentary from Mr Risby [OK] about this, there are times when perhaps it is appropriate because there is either a lot of public land being included in the proposal that a private enterprise is wanting to develop, or whatever, or there are other factors that make it of great public interest as well. No doubt there will be differing views on that.

I appreciated the information that was provided by the Government in relation to a bit of a summary of the current approaches and projects that have been through this process in the past. Many of them were before most of our time; probably for a lot of us, all of our time. If you were elected after 2010, you have not seen this. The few of us who have are probably still traumatised by some of it. It is interesting to note that back in 1995, the Copper Mines Tasmania was approved without parliamentary approval. That is a private enterprise putting forward a proposal that was agreed to by the government of the day, as recommended, and went ahead. Interesting. The second one, Taiwan Corporation pulp mill in 1996, was withdrawn before the assessment was completed. Funny thing about pulp mills - just an observation. The third, Oceanport 1998, was refused without parliamentary review. That was refused by the TPC, or the POSS process. Basslink 1999 was approved without parliamentary approval - I will come back to that in a minute. Bell Bay pulp mill in 2008 was withdrawn and we saw an extraordinary approach of bringing forward legislation to give effect to that. Anyway, that is what happened there. Ralphs Bay Lauderdale Quay in 2010 was refused without parliamentary review. It was always a bit of an interesting project.

I had a couple of work experience students here with me during the time of that debate and I asked them to tell me, after they had been to all the briefings, whether they would support it or not, or refer it to POSS. They said, 'Thank goodness we don't have to make this decision, it is too hard.' These are big projects, big decisions, and we should not take them lightly.

Just to go to the Basslink approval, I note in the information that was provided that - I did not actually manage to get hold of this bit. I got hold of another bit about it, but this was referred by the then premier, Mr Bacon, and the attachment that is in our briefing document indicates that this was made on 19 April 1999. There was a range of expectations, or directions, put into that. It does say in point 7 of that:
[TBC]
The commission is to submit its report to the minister under section 26(1) of the act by 31 January 2001 -

So, it was sent in April 1999. I thought it was a pretty quick turnaround, in many respects, if you look at what had to happen.

… or such later date as the minister may direct in writing.

Now, I assume there was a direction in writing to facilitate that because it actually was not reported until July 2002. It took just over three years to go through that process. I did have some questions about that - not that I am going to ask them here, but questions in my mind about the Basslink process. This process has occurred on both sides of Bass Strait, so reading through the document I am pretty convinced it only dealt with the matters on this side - no? I am getting a shake of the head. I am not sure how it works when a project here extends into another jurisdiction. In any event, it took longer than was anticipated and one would expect, if the we get to the next stage of referral, it may well take longer than expected. This means regardless of when the next election is held, even if this Government goes full term, the likelihood of a report back from the TPC is almost zero before the next election.

It is an interesting point to contemplate, but also when we look at the agreement and deal with the AFL, they have certain expectations and demands with time lines. The time lines have been pushed way out of the water already. Potentially, we start paying penalties as a state if we do not get this done. I hope there is a mood for renegotiation on that point, as there may be on other points. That is not a matter for this debate.

This bill itself has absolutely nothing to do with my views on the proposed stadium or any other major project that may come to us. It is about whether this is an appropriate amendment to make to this piece of legislation and I believe it is.

I also note, to reiterate what the Leader said in her second reading speech, the process for this. There was flow chart in our briefing document, helpful to reiterate the process under the proposed amendments. After the order is made by the Governor to come to parliament, but before it is approved in the parliament, the minister must give a written direction to the commission instructing it to conduct an integrated assessment of the project. My question - and I would like this clarified by the Leader in her response we discussed in the briefing - is: assuming we get to the point where this order is made and then seeking approval of the parliament, do members of parliament get to see this direction? We are aware of what the Government's expectation is, in addition to the other matters already part of the assessment, because when you read the directions for the Basslink for example, there are quite a few. I hope the Leader can respond to that question.

The act provides this direction can also require the commission to comply with any requirement regarding specific matters to be addressed in the assessment, the process to be followed and undertaken in the assessment, or the time within which the integrated assessment must be completed. When I quoted the Basslink one there was a date in that, but also it had to be extended because the work could not be completed in that time. Can we expect to see a date in this? If we get to see it, we will have this information before we debate the order, but I am trying to get some clarity around what we will see. The letter then went on to say that: (TBC)

The past projects of state significance assessments have been triggered by directions that have indicated consideration of specific planning, environmental or social issues, that the project is anticipated to be important.

I note in the Basslink, there were also expectations the proponent would describe how they were going to mitigate these risks. I do not know if that needs to be spelled out, but it was in the Basslink one, just to name up the problems, but not to say how you are going to mitigate this or deal with this would be a concern.

These are over and above the direction to the conduct of the legislated integrated assessment of environmental, social, economic and community issues. I hope it is a fairly comprehensive direction and we have a clear indication of what the Government are thinking about this and a heads up for when they do that. The Leader mentioned it in her second reading speech and, again, we spoke about this at the briefing. I will not go to the review of the act. The member for Nelson has asked a lot about that. The Leader stated she was giving notice the Government intended to table regulations that provide for the full cost recovery of the assessment. I want the Leader to clarify that process in terms of whether those regulations will be made, gazetted and tabled before we are dealing with the order. If she could clarify that timeline. I know what the process is, but I want to know when it is gazetted because they are operational from the day they are gazetted.

With the requirement for a publicly funded major project - we are not going to get anything but a major significant project through this legislation in the future, regardless of whether it is reviewed and changed or not. Depending on how private investors or private parties feel, they may never even seek to use it again. The question I have perhaps for the consideration of the review, or even now, is: if a private proponent came and there was a significant public interest, regardless of what the proponent wants, my understanding is the government can still declare or seek to declare it a project of state significance and go through this process, regardless of the private operator. That is when the rubber will really hit the roads, if the proponent thinks I am not going to take that risk, the parliament might knock it out at the end. If the Leader can clarify that. It is not up to the private proponent to make that decision. It is up to the government of the day through an order to parliament to be approved by both Houses. I think the answer is yes, but I want that clarified.

Mrs Hiscutt - I can confirm, yes.
Ms FORREST - Thanks. The other question I have is in relation to the bill's definition of what public entities are drawn into this. I asked this in the briefing and they should have a response for me. When we look at section 4 of the act, it refers to: (ok)

(b)(i) The Crown in right of Tasmania including, but not limited to, an Agency within the meaning of the Financial Management Act 2016.

Well, the agency includes all the major agencies. There is a list in Schedule 1 - Part 1 of the Financial Management Act - and any entity within the meaning of the Financial Management Act.

Now, to read the definition of an entity in the Financial Management Act that includes - (OK)

(a) a Government Business Enterprise; and

(b) a State-owned Company; and

(c) a State authority that is not a Government Business Enterprise; and

(d) the council, or board (however designated) of, or for, a corporation, body of persons, or institution, that is or appointed by the Governor or a Minister of the Crown …

My concern is we have GBEs or state-owned companies, who have wholly owned subsidiaries that are not GBEs or state-owned companies. They are wholly owned subsidiaries of them and operate in their own right. They have separate financial reporting. My concern is that we need to amend this to include those subsidiary companies of GBEs and SOCs, because the biggest game in town is not a stadium, it is Marinus Link. Members would know how many times I have spoken about this, the many questions I have asked, and still a lot of unanswered questions. Also, this is a matter raised by the other Independents of the other House that is now a major concern for them. Be that as it may, if you are going to capture all likely, or possible, expenditure of public money through either a GBE or one of their own companies, you need to be sure they are all captured. It will not be TasNetworks if Marinus is proposed as a POSS, it will be Marinus Link Pty Ltd or whatever they are called now. It is really important that is included. Hydro has its own wholly owned subsidiaries too and it is another big player in terms of the impact on the state's financial position. That is an important question I would like the Leader to follow up with me.

Of course, I will listen to the rest of the debate and other amendments proposed as they come forward, but this is an appropriate mechanism. This is what the people of Tasmania would expect. In fact, it was the presumption of the Premier that such a major publicly funded project would come back to the parliament for approval after it had been through an independent process, so I support the intent of the bill. I will listen with interest to the rest of the debate and the amendments that are proposed later.