Legislataive Council, Wednesday 27 November 2024 

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I have not written anything formal here to present, so I will be referring to my notes. I find this bill an interesting approach. I do not dismiss at all the need for the opportunity for large developments that are complex or trigger other assessment or approval processes, to be extended. I was in the parliament when we extended, under a range of other planning provisions, the extension from four years to six years. That is right; one extension to two extensions - to be granted by a council. It was acknowledged at the time that there were a range of reasons why some things could take longer to get underway. We are not generally talking about a house here. We are talking about a more complex and larger development that is subject to a development approval.

There has been that opportunity to extend by councils. That was, in many respects, a positive thing to acknowledge that some things do take a bit longer to get to substantial commencement. I do not know that at the time it was envisaged that these would be dealing with large or complex developments. A lot of the reasons why some of those changes were made were that it was in the absence of major project legislation. Projects such as Robbins Island windfarm, for example, if they had started more recently, they probably would have applied to go through the major projects pathway rather than through local government anyway. That is a matter that perhaps I will discuss more in another bill that may or may not come to us later in the week.

I thank the departmental officers for their briefing this morning. I asked them what projects sit behind this - that have triggered this. I am very well aware of one which is in my electorate. That is the windfarm at Port Latta. This is one windfarm that has probably had next to no pushback or criticism. It is not a very big windfarm. It is near the Port Latta Grange Resources facilities. It is near a major transmission line. It is pretty inoffensive in pretty much every way. It did see favour of the community and the council. I have had discussions with the proponents there about the barriers to them proceeding with a substantial development, to make sure their DA remains valid. In their case, there is not much they can do in substantially commencing, unless they build the wind turbines, because that is what the development is. Whereas, if you are building a house, you may be able to put down a slab; you can do some other things to show substantial commencement.

Here we are. As we know, there is a lot of demand for componentry for windfarms. We know there are some technical aspects that need to be addressed regarding access to the network, et cetera. I am not sure of all the details of what they are still waiting on for approvals and why this extension is required on their part. I know that their DA is about to run out. They would have to go right back through the process again. They could do that. There is nothing to stop them from doing that. It was not a tortuous process overall for them. It seems that when you have the nature of these sorts of developments, it is an opportunity to extend for a further two years. That is it. No more - so we have heard in the past, I will add - no more until we change the legislation again, potentially, but let us take it at its face value that it is one more extension of two years. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposition. When they spoke to me about that, I thought perhaps that is a reasonable thing to ask for.

My concern is that we are giving the minister the power to make that decision, when it is the council that has done all the good work. The proponent applied, through the proper process, to the council for a development application approval. It went through the process and it was approved. The council knows this project. It is in their municipality - Circular Head Council being the council in question here. It has already assessed it; it already understands the project. I find it hard to accept that it could not be granted this power rather than the minister, because once you have a minister having this power -

This is not about Port Latta windfarm; this is about any development that is so called complex or technical in nature. There is no definition or any guidance on what 'technical' or 'complex nature' is. There is no avenue in this bill for that to be defined or made public as to why such a decision was made by the minister. Give the proponent two more years. In this case, it probably would not matter a hoot with Port Latta windfarm, for example. It was broadly supported and it is something that is basically welcome in the community. However, this could apply to all manner of other developments that are perhaps not as well supported or have had a range of parties opposing that site. It went through the process - and we do need an agreed, rigorous and consistent process so people can have confidence in our planning system. A project that has been through the process - even though there are loud voices of opposition - and has been approved, been through the parliament, the people who felt very aggrieved have had to accept that as the decision.

Now, for whatever reason - maybe there was a lack of social licence, maybe a lack of funding available to the proponent to proceed with this project because of the lack of social licence, for example - we are now seeing a minister having the power, if this bill should pass as is, with the power to say, 'We are going to give you another two years to get your finance organised', or the fact that the social licence is just not there, 'We are going to override that and ignore the people and give you two more years.'

I am not arguing against the potential need for two more years to substantially commence a development that is of a larger and more technical nature, or whatever it is. However, surely the council is best placed to make a decision about whether this two years of extra time to substantially commence is a reasonable request.

I asked in the briefing if the Port Latta windfarm was the only one, as far as the government knows, that has flagged it. I know that because I have spoken to the proponents. I also know that, as I understand, anyway, the Jims Plain windfarm (further out in Circular Head off Harcus River Road, out toward Woolnorth) development application is due to expire soon too. This one is an ACEN project, formerly UPC, that was approved fairly smoothly through the Circular Head Council. This one - I believe it is still the case, I have not specifically asked ACEN - but it is contingent on the Robbins Island windfarm getting up.

We could see the minister use this legislation to also grant that an extra two years. Should they, or should they not?

The council should make that decision. If that is to be granted an extra two years and there could be every good reason why it should, but you risk politicising. I believe it is contentious because of its connections development, as opposed to being contentious in the project itself.

The council then has to make the decision. Has the proponent convinced it that it warrants an extra two years to get this underway? Or should they have to come back with a fresh DA because things have changed so much in the six years that have passed?

I will listen to other contributions and will certainly listen to any further comment from the Leader or other members of her government. I fail to see why we should be giving this power to the minister, not to the local government authority that has assessed the project and approved it. It has gone through a proper process. We are not trying to subvert the planning system here as other bills may. This is extending an already approved proposal and I believe the council is best placed, unless I can be convinced otherwise.

I cannot support the bill as it is. The member for Elwick has proposed amendments and is determining which version she would like to proceed. I will be listening to what she has to say about this.

Unlike many members in this place, I am not from a local government background. A lot of our members here are and probably better understand these processes than I do, but I understand what a proper process looks like. I have been here for some time now. We have made a number of changes over the years to our planning processes and the government has committed to doing more. It has done some things in the planning area; it was going to have it all done pretty promptly back in - what year was it? That is right, 10 years ago - 2014.

It seems we still have a lot of work to do in this area to really make it a clearer process that everyone understands. It still seems to be a very confusing area for a lot of people. We constantly see tinkering at the edges. This is another form of tinkering. I cannot understand why you would not keep with the current process that is essentially working in the council's assessment of a development application. It has seen the favour of the council. It has met all the requirements to be approved. They just have not been able to get that project substantially commenced as some other projects may have been able to. Perhaps, you could have built part of it and then dealt with more hard-to-get componentry, whereas for this case it is the hard-to-get componentry that has been the challenge.

There is a risk with the bill as it stands with the politicisation of a decision. This could easily be avoided by handing that decision - in these different, more complex, larger or legitimate projects that have faced barriers to commencing - back to the body that originally approved it, because they know it best.