Legislative Council, Thursday 31 October 2024

Mr PRESIDENT - Just to clarify, because of the motion, the member for Murchison is still on her feet as second reading contributor, so the member for Murchison gets the call and then all other members from then on, in which to make a second reading contribution.

Ms FORREST - Mr President, my contribution will be brief as I have said most of the things that need to be said as part of this entire debate; once, in relation to potential referral to the committee and again in my previous comments in this debate.

I will just say that if we are concerned or worried about the approval of other projects, or the validity of other projects, none has been identified or is at immediate risk of demolition that we have been told about. So, to me it is not an urgent matter.

During the contribution on the proposed adjournment, to say that this has no impact on Robbins Island is disingenuous at best. The second reading speech, itself, says 'in recent months there have been concerns about how the State Coastal Policy has been applied to development on actively mobile landforms. The recent approval of' - not some development down in Hobart or on the east coast, King Island, or in the central Midlands; it is on a coastal area, the Robbins Island windfarm. To say this is not the trigger or impacted is disingenuous at best. I reserve my judgment on whether it is more than that until a later time because I can count.

Anyway, we are fundamentally interfering in a legal live court process, such that the EPA director himself, the retiring Wes Ford, said the EPA would withdraw from that action if this bill proceeds. If that is not an impact on a live proceeding, I do not know what is. I will voting against the bill.

If this was not happening now and we were at a point when the court decision had already been made, I would probably be quite happy to support this bill - particularly if I could get a bit more information about what is actually at risk here. But, it is more important for there to be a proper review of the State Coastal Policy that clearly outlines what we are talking about and absolutely ensures that developments on our coastal areas, of which there are many - and my electorate has more than its fair share of coastline. You are talking all of King Island and pretty much all the west coast down to a certain other member's area down there and meeting up with other members there.

Mr PRESIDENT - And?

Ms FORREST - No, you do not have any coastline we share.

Ms O'Connor - You have a lot of rivers.

Ms FORREST - A lot of rivers, but not coastal. Lakes have a shore, not a coastline. In any event, Mr President, we really have to get that right because we, as an island, rely on access to the sea for a lot of things that we do. Every wharf that has to be built, just ask the people who are trying to work out how to build a wharf for a new ship in Devonport how complicated that can be.

I am very concerned, deeply concerned, about impacting and interfering in a current live court process. I cannot believe that we would suggest that it is anything but that. Regardless of the project that is subject to that legal action and whether the DA that was issued was valid or not, that is not the point. Whether it is a legal process related to that project or any other coastal project, my view would be the same. It is not about that project; it is about interfering in a live legal action. I will not be supporting the bill.

Motion - that the debate on the VALIDATION (STATE COASTAL POLICY) BILL 2024 stand adjourned

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - I do not intend to speak very long on this, because I have made a number of comments in my contribution on the referral to a committee. But I do say if we are worried about approval of coastal projects, whether they be caravan parks, jetties, coastal pathways, shacks with verandahs or without, anything in our coastal areas, which is a lot of development, I accept, then I am not aware of any that are under immediate threat of demolition right now. We are seeking to validate permits that those projects would have.

But what I am aware of is a legal action that is currently on foot, a very live action currently on foot that is named up in the second reading speech as relevant to this debate. I have always taken the approach, and I know most all other members, I believe, take it seriously about not crossing across a judicial process, particularly one that is currently live.

This is currently live. It is related to a development on a coastline that should have had an assessment under the coastal planning policy but did not, and a court is to make a decision about whether, in fact, it needed to, on whether, in fact, the work done was adequate or not. So, it is relevant.

I am concerned that proceeding with this at this point; I am not able to support this bill.

I move -

That the debate stand adjourned.

The purpose of this is to enable that process to complete before we consider this bill so there is no ambiguity, there is no concern, there is no current legal process that we cut across and we can come back to this, I imagine, early next year. It would be nice to see the sitting schedule, I might my ad, knowing when we are coming back and I could name up the date.

But, you know, I do not have that yet. Well, it is not quite December yet, I suppose we do not need to know until then. Anyway, that was a narky comment and not relevant to the bill. But, I am concerned that cutting across a live legal process, as effectively named up in this bill, we should have very serious concerns about. So, if this motion to adjourn is not supported, then I can indicate now I will not be supporting the bill.

Motion negatived

Motion to refer the VALIDATION (STATE COASTAL POLICY) BILL 2024 to a Committee

Ms FORREST - Because the Leader does not have the right of reply, I am happy - with your indulgence, Mr President - to see if she will answer this question before I start into my main contribution. It concerns whether Billy Boat Ramp and everybody else named in that interesting approach was required to get an approval by the EPA, as under their development application process - noting that perhaps in the day when Billy Boat Ramp built his boat ramp and Sam Shack Owner added on his verandah, it may not have even been triggering the Building act at that point, depending on when it was, because of the change that has been made. If all of these fictitious people require the approval of the EPA, then maybe the Leader has a point - maybe.

Mrs Hiscutt - It has to be committed to council anyway. It says here, if you read it.

Ms FORREST - No, I will get to my point, as to why that, to me, is significant here. I was of two minds about supporting this motion. I think maybe the Leader has pushed me into the affirmative by that anyway, but I will make some points as to what I have considered. Knowing that the member for Hobart was intending to bring this motion forward, I gave some thought to whether there was value in a committee inquiry into this. I asked myself, as I always do - and the member for Elwick has been very good reminding me of this - what is the problem we are trying to fix here? What would a committee referral fix here? 

I appreciate the member for Hobart's comments about the matters that she sees as relevant and important to this. What we are trying to fix here is to understand more fully the application and implication, as I understand it, of this bill. I, too, was a bit surprised that the government tried to ram this bill through during the budget session because we give up all our private members' time during the budget session to give priority to the government's delivery of their budget. That is what the budget session is about and I am always happy to consider and scrutinise budget related legislation, tax related bills that are reflected in the budget, those sort of areas. This is not that.

It was right and proper, therefore, that this was delayed until after the budget session was completed. Now, here we are, the week after the budget session being completed, being asked to consider it. The question now becomes: are we in a position where we believe we have enough information to proceed with this bill and if we do not, is a referral to a committee an appropriate step. Will the committee be able to shed a light on this bill as to its appropriateness, whether it should or should not stand, whether it should stand as it is, or whether it should not even be brought into law? Now, if it is referred to a committee, it may or may not make that definitive determination and I would not expect a committee to do that because, at the end of the day, it is up to each member in this House to decide whether a bill should or should not be supported. It would, however, provide a lot more information about what sits behind this bill and whether what the Leader asserts is actually true.

I know this is getting a little bit toward the matter in the bill - well, maybe not because we are not really clear about that are we? I will go to my electorate, to Robbins Island, because it has been referred to and some people say it is fundamental to this bill.

Would a committee be able to clarify these issues so we can fully understand the matter at hand? 

The Leader tells us the bill is about removing doubt from any development that has received a planning permit in good faith and acted on that. Now, I have been to Robbins Island more than once. It is private land; it is privately owned, and there is an area up on the western end - it is a large island, much bigger than people think, as the member for Huon can probably attest from attending the site visit for the energy committee and the member for, well, the minister for Infrastructure now would also be able to attest, but he is no longer a member of the committee; the member for Pembroke was also there. It is a large island and down the western end there is orange bellied parrot feeding habitat, and we went there and we looked at that. I do not believe that the representative of ACEN attempted to hide anything on that visit in relation to the presence or otherwise of the orange bellied parrot or of any shorebirds, the Tasmanian devils and their denning habitat, or about the disruption that the proposed development, particularly the wharf, would have on that and the mitigation measures they are looking at putting in place in regard to that.

I am not going to express an opinion about that proposal; that is not what I am here to do. However, I will say that what brought this to our attention is the EPA failed to do their job and that is why I asked the Leader: was the EPA required to approve Billy Backstab's position and whoever else we have? I mean, all those fictitious people, was that even a relevant thing to put that - the reason we seem to be here in this place right now is the EPA failed to do its job and so entered a court action in the Supreme Court that was already on foot.

We had a Supreme Court action on foot from a group of concerned local residents. They are entitled to their action. I understand their action, I understand why they do not want to see this project proceed, and I also understand there are members in this community that I represent who support it. Most developments will have this community split, so I am not here to express an opinion about that. I am here to do my job on this bill.

The EPA joined that Supreme Court action. Let us be really clear, that is what happened. Now, as I understand it and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, if this bill was to be approved today, the EPA, and the EPA director said this himself in a briefing we had with him a couple of weeks or so ago, that they would withdraw from that action.

This bill, in my mind, directly interferes in a judicial process because if it is passed today, the EPA will withdraw. It will not stop the court action because the other action from the concerned residents of my community who have taken that forward will continue. We are always, and we should be and were yesterday, conscious of matters before a judicial process and to not interfere in them. We need to be aware of that and, regardless of what the Leader said, there is a current judicial process on foot that would be impacted by this legislation because the EPA director said it himself. Let us be very clear about that.

I have been concerned right from the start about the interference in a judicial process. The judicial process might find, in fact, that even though the EPA has been shown not to have fully considered the relevant section of the State Coastal Policy, the approval still stands. I do not know. I am not going to presume that I know what the court will find. That is not my job. Nor would I suggest that I could have any idea what they will find. In any event, they could do that. They could also say that the EPA failed to do their job - which I hope they do not ever fail in again because it is very disappointing to find ourselves here - and go back and do that work. As I understand it, that is what the process would be.

I do not want to go on about this because we are getting into the actual impact of the bill.

Mr PRESIDENT - No, it is about sending it to a committee. 

Ms FORREST - Will a committee be able to establish those matters? Well, because of the time of year we are in - and I understand this matter is going to court later this year, but who knows? You never know if it will be further delayed or whatever. Going to committee would give time to fully consider this matter and give the court time to address their matter. I would say that if the court comes back and says it is all fine, the DA stands as approved, do we actually need this? Maybe we do because of all those shack owners, the boat ramp, the coastal track, the golf course, the caravan park development, and everything else.

We live on an island, I am sure we all know that, where we rely very much, as we have seen with the debacles around our ports, on our connection between the sea and the land. We need to be sure we get this right. What should be happening, and I understand is happening, the minister has disappeared, but what we do need is a full and proper review of the Coastal Policy and that is on foot. That should be sorted out through that - this issue of the perhaps ill-defined 'mobile landform,' should be addressed in that process and it should not have taken this long to get to that process either. It is a bit like the environment report that the member for Hobart noted.

I am concerned we are dealing with the bill now because of the legal action that is currently on foot. I am concerned with a retrospective nature of it without some clear indication that it is needed. It is fictitious people with real things that someone might think, 'I am going to go and complain about that neighbour's shack because it has a verandah on it now and I do not like the look of it or it interferes slightly with my view of the ocean'. Will the committee be able to resolve these issues? I am not sure they entirely will, but we will certainly get more information about it and we will have a better understanding of it. The committee may have the desire and capacity to seek the legal advice in confidence. I would not expect it to be made public, I do not think that is appropriate, but I do believe the committee should and would have power to receive that in confidence. We know committees take receiving material in confidence very seriously and respect it.

With those points - I will listen to the rest of the debate on this, but I was not convinced by the Leader. I was far more convinced by the member for Hobart and I do not think this is an urgent matter.

Motion negatived