Legislative Council, Wednesday 27 November 2024

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, this bill is one of three planning bills that are being rushed through the parliament in the last part of the year to fix problems that have been identified through a variety of processes. This takes me back to the years when the Labor Party was in power and we used to have an unholy rush at the end of the year to ram things through. There was an awful lot of pressure on people at the time because of the nature of the deadlines, the time lines, and that sort of thing. Arguably, this one, perhaps, has not been kicking around for that long in its rejection by the TPC, but here we are at the end of the year being asked to consider something that has hardly had time to be fully consulted.

In any event, this particular bill is concerning as it completely overrides the agreed planning approval processes and risks setting a dangerous precedent. When a developer does not get what they want, they could, on the basis of this bill, successfully head off to the government to get a bespoke bill for their processes and purposes.

Mrs Hiscutt - It is the council as well.

Ms FORREST - The council what?

Mrs Hiscutt - The council want it, not just the developer.

Ms FORREST - Yes, but the government has brought forward the legislation. I will get to the council.

I do not dispute for a second the need for this development or a development similar to this in this area. I do not shop in Devonport very often, but on the way home sometimes I do go into Hill Street. I do not go into the majors. I go into Hill Street because I like Hill Street. That is always flat out, I agree. We also drive past the car parking. You do not have to, you can go in the other way, past the car parking areas. It is like when visiting the Premier, because his office is over the road and up a bit from these areas. You can see that it is a highly utilised area. You have quite a significant development on the southern side of the Bass Highway. My brother lives up that way and he thought it was a good idea to have this. That is one opinion.

This is about process. That is where I want to focus my thoughts. I note the contribution from the member for Mersey, which was very extensive and covered both sides of the argument. He has basically been dealt with the proverbial sandwich here. You are stuck - I think you used 'Hobson's choice'. It really is no choice. He has a duty to represent his community. We have a duty here to make sure that our processes that are agreed by this parliament are not trashed.

The draft amendment and development application referred to within this bill was previously considered by the Tasmanian Planning Commission but was refused. I will come to some of those comments that have been made about the Tasmanian Planning Commission, which are quite demeaning and inappropriate. We should highly value our rigorous planning processes to ensure that the development in our state is appropriate, is assessed, and there is an opportunity for people to have their say. I understand the people in Devonport have had their say and, by and large, nearly all of them fully support this development.

That is not the question or the point. The council approved the development and fully support the development. That is not the question. The business community there fully support it. Talking about jobs and job creation during the build and into the future is real. However, I know how hard it is to get some retail staff. Unless we have a big population boom up there, potentially it is going to be hard to fill some of these retail jobs.

Mrs Hiscutt - You can go back to the old job!

Ms FORREST - No, my job was not the bit that needed to be increased. It was further down the line.

In any event, the fact that a process has occurred in the past to deal with the Parliament Square building - and the member for Mersey read comments out from Mr Spanton - does not make it right. The fact that it might have happened before, when you are looking at process and respecting our processes, if the process is wrong, we should try to change the process, through a proper process. I will get to the strategic plans that have perhaps failed to keep up with the times.

If we continue to trash our planning approvals process, which is how it can be seen, then everyone loses. Once you undermine a robust planning system, then it is a free for all. We know how powerful and strong developers can be. I asked the minister when he rang me only a couple of days ago, because I have only had it for a couple of days, if he or his party had received donations from the proponent, Tipalea Partners, and he was unable to tell me. I asked Mr Spanton in the briefing today, did he pay donations to the Liberal Party and he said, yes, they do. I asked him how much and he said he could not tell me. It is probably less than Beacon, but, thousands of dollars. I do not know how much he provides Beacon. It could be $200,000.

Ms O'Connor - The Premier refused to answer that question when we asked him downstairs this week. Now it is confirmed.

Ms FORREST - You were in the briefing?

Ms O'Connor - I think I stepped out of that briefing.

Ms FORREST - Well, Mr Spanton said yes, they do. He did not name the figure, but he said it was less than what they give Beacon. We can find out what they give Beacon and it might give us a ballpark. There you go.

We know that political donations are made for a purpose. We know that property developers are notorious in this area. I am not suggesting this of Tipalea Partners, but it is a risk. It is a risk when we are bringing forward legislation to approve a project from a developer who has made political donations. That should be concerning.

In terms of this actual development, I do recall, having lived on the north-west coast all my life, that the area of Stony Rise, when it was first proposed as a retail area, there was great concern raised about what went in that space and the risk of it further dividing the Devonport CBD. The member for Mersey would remember this. There was great concern from retailers in the city because not only the city retailers, there is also Fourways, a few kilometres away - not that far - but it pulled the city apart in these two different retail areas. There was genuine and legitimate concern expressed at that time.

I understand the decision making around 2009, as the member for Mersey said, there was a commitment to having the big box-type developments not competing with the retailers in town. I believe you heard the member for Mersey talk about the Rooke St Mall. That has often been a bit of a dead zone. I have walked through and it is a dead zone. It is not a really an enticing place to go. It does not actually feel all that safe when you walk through it in the evenings and it is quite an underutilised space. There were legitimate concerns from retailers in the CBD because of some of that. The decision was made to basically restrict this type of retail to those big box developments as a complex. That is 2009 and a lot of time has passed since then.

Yes, communities change; communities grow. The area where my brother lives, on whatever road it is up behind Stony Rise, has grown quite significantly. There are a lot of new properties up in there, when I go visit him. They are quite large blocks. He cannot subdivide his block at the moment - he could put about 10 blocks on it. In time coming, I bet he can, as the demand for housing and because there are already roads and services you would expect that to happen, which would put even more people and pressure on these areas.

I would have thought, at the front of mind for the Devonport City Council would have been reviewing, looking at this and getting on with it, asking, what do we actually need in this space? Where do we need these retail spaces? It is a smack of Devonport Council, but when the circumstances change and if you can see there is population growth there and you are stuck with just big box development, then would you not think it appropriate to revisit those strategic plans and update them to reflect the needs of your community, rather than just sit on it?

I do not know whether they have just sat on it or not, or what they have been doing, but we are now here. We heard at the briefing, from the mayor, they are now working on this. They have had, well not since 2009 - because 2009 was a clear decision made, but in more recent times when they have seen the quite significant growth in that area. You would have thought that perhaps this could be looked at, rather than have to subvert a process and basically smack down the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Saying, we do not agree with this, you are going to bring in our own legislation to benefit the developer.

I was somewhat taken aback by the e-mail I had from Tipalea Partners yesterday, telling us that they were going to put out this a full-page media release in their paper - which is absolutely in their right to do. However, I suggest they use less provocative language in it and perhaps do not denigrate our Planning Commission that has a very important job to do. That is what they were doing: their job.

When it was sent out, they actually made reference to the member for Mersey. I was quite concerned about that reference. I will read what it said. It said:

… We are now hoping the upper House will also pass the legislation once they have reviewed and debated it this week. In the upper House, we really need the support of the independents, with our local independent member for Mersey, Mike Gaffney MLC, hopefully leading the charge …

That is putting what I see as an unacceptable pressure on the local member. Of course, he is going to do his work. He will make his decisions. However, to have these potentially - and it was not in the newspaper, because I rang the member for Mersey and asked, 'Have you seen this? You should read it'. I know that he did contact them, and it was removed from the ad today. So, it is not in the paper.

This is bordering on inappropriate behaviour, in trying to influence a member and put a lot of pressure on them, knowing full well the wedged position the member was in - a member who does care about proper process and has often spoken about proper process in this place, and admittedly, by his own admission, that it is not an easy decision. It was a very difficult place to be put in.

In the advertisement in the paper, they also said:
[TBC]
… Where the process has failed is in allowing the TPC to micromanage and run roughshod over the decisions of local councils and communities as to whether they should be allowed critical infrastructure, and if so, where in their wisdom did they think it should go …

That is quite inappropriate to have that sort of crack at the TPC, in my view. I will not read some other parts that the member for Mersey read. They talk about the retail impact and the TPC. They talk about the the Glebe Hill Village, which I understand and I hear almost a completely different approach when the member for Pembroke spoke about how this organisation engages with the local community. We hear this really collaborative, respectful approach, and then we read this.

Is it the same company? Apparently so, but that did not add up for me. Anyway, they talk about that:
[TBC]
… Again, with the greatest respect for what they do, there is unlikely to be any real-life retail experience within the TPC around retail economic impacts and the demographic drivers of retail demand, as there just hasn't been any need for that skill set in Tasmania until now …

Ms O'Connor - What an insult.

Ms FORREST - I know. Really? That completely ignores the role of the TPC.

They go on, a bit further down:
[TBC]
… So, it is somewhat a bad look for Tasmania when in our own TPC hearing, we have a panel member with no experience in retail economic impacts aggressively disagreeing with the best in the business, and then floating their own embarrassing wild theories on job creation retail demand as being fact.

I get that you want Tasmanians making decisions for Tasmania, but this isn't Little Athletics where everyone gets a ribbon for showing up. This is first grade, and you need to bring on an A-Team. If you had a heart attack, would you want the dentist doing a triple bypass? No, neither would I, but Stoney Rise Village got a dentist all the same and bled out on the floor …

I mean, what is that rubbish?

Ms O'Connor - Had a couple of wines before he wrote it, maybe.

Ms FORREST - I don't know. And then:
[TBC]
… In trying to micromanage what will be a living, breathing, evolving shopping centre, the TPC is unfortunately not sufficiently qualified on this, and it's not really their fault. They just haven't had any experience in the area of retail …

What an insult. What an insult to our Tasmanian Planning Commission. What disrespect is shown to the process that these people are employed by the government on behalf of the people of Tasmania to do. I will not read out his email in relation to this bill, but Mr Risby said that the planning area has been so under resourced for so long there is no wonder things get held up and delayed at times. There are two problems that need to be fixed, the resourcing of the planning sector, the commission, et cetera and the planning policy unit as well, and timely updating of the strategic plans for our local communities.

Then, the coup d'etat, almost - 'I know many upper House members are unhappy with the government'. Really? I am not sure how he knows that. He says, apparently we are unhappy with the government, particularly over DAP. We have not debated the DAP yet. How does he know? I am getting plenty of emails about the DAP clogging up the inbox. 'You want to send them a message'. Do we? Is that right?

Ms Webb - Wow, he is casting aspersions on us.

Ms FORREST - Please do not make Devonport the collateral damage in that message. They are two separate issues. They are not the same thing. What an insult to us. He has taken a swipe at the planning commission, us, he has had a go at the member for Mersey but he did take that out. I think it is an extraordinary abuse and inappropriate action which flies in the face of the other comments I hear from members who have dealt with this organisation.

Ms O'Connor - Treating us like provincials.

Ms FORREST - This is the power of a developer, is it? We are finally seeing the true colours. When they are getting their own way all is tickety boo. When something goes wrong, is this what we see? Maybe that is the case.

There is a whole heap of other stuff they sent that makes you think what was going for them to think it was an appropriate way to interact with the members of this place, and ask us to support a bill that ignores the planning process that has been agreed by this parliament? If the process is not right, we should be fixing the process. As I said in the briefing, when the Liberal government came into power in 2014, this was a big ticket item, saying that they are going to fix planning. Well, they have done a lot of work in this space, but we have still got these problems going on.

The Tasmanian Planning Commission is actually a specialist expert body in determining planning matters. They may not be experts in retail because that is not their job, actually. Regarding this project, I know the draft amendment and planning permit application was considered in the context of the strategic planning principles and policies that have been implemented by the local and state government, which have been formally adopted in accordance with the legislative framework. If it is change to these plans that is needed, that is what needs to be progressed. How long would it take? I do not know. Things take a long time in this space. Maybe because the space is under resourced? Oh dear. Whose job is that? Oh, that is the government. Maybe that I am angry with the government.

What was and still is an option for this developer under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to make another scheme amendment and permit application. That can be assessed against the current scheme or it can wait until the Devonport council updates its strategic plans. Some claim that even going through that process for another application would not bring success because the strategic plans need changing. That may be the case. Either way, I am not sure that we should be using bespoke legislation for the benefit of a developer who has not covered themselves in glory in the last two days.

I am very concerned that the government has taken a position that a determination of a specialist Tasmanian Planning Commission should be overridden, despite the obvious need for this development. I do not shy away from that. There is a need for the development. It is about the process here.

It is interesting that this bill is almost at odds with the position being advocated for and rushed in through other poorly consulted legislation, being the development assessment panels. This bill is seeking to take decisions away from local councils on the basis of avoiding a political determination. Here we are making a political determination. There has been a bit of hypocrisy there, perhaps.

This bill is an interference in a properly agreed process without a clear justification, and risks destroying public confidence in the planning system. As we know, one of the objectives of the planning regime is public involvement. Ad hoc overriding legislation discourages the public from being involved in the planning processes. It sets a bad precedent in terms of future approvals and refusals. Mind you, not so much this one, but certainly the other one we are dealing with tomorrow is stopping people engaging, quite frankly, by the number of emails in the inbox.

As I mentioned already, this bill could embolden future governments to use such an instrument to intervene in any planned decision made by its own Tasmanian Planning Commission that it does not agree with. I absolutely acknowledge the general support for this development and a development of this nature in this area, but it should meet the current requirements. If it does not, either alter the process through a proper agreed process or resubmit the proposal and see if you can meet the requirements.

I feel very frustrated that we find ourselves here. I do know that the Devonport community and the Devonport Council really do want this development to go ahead. If that was not the case, it would be a no brainer. Well, maybe not. I do not know. The government might still try to push something through like this. I do not know.

The reality is that what we are doing here is a bespoke piece of legislation that ignores our Planning Commission, which is tasked with the job - not a job to assess whether a retail development is good or bad, but whether any proposal meets the planning scheme under which it is being assessed.

It did identify matters like the traffic concern. I acknowledge the member for Mersey has an amendment to try to address some of that. Friend Street is obviously a real bottleneck. Stony Rise Road along the back is not a big street. It is a suburban street which has houses all along the other side of the road so it is not like you can massively widen that area there. Maybe that is one of the considerations when the Devonport Council decided that they would put big box developments up there because you are not going to have quite the number of vehicles going in and out perhaps as you would have a supermarket and lots of other retail takeaway shops and things like that. It is a pretty congested area. I would hate to think that this development was approved through this process and then there was an accident there and a child was hurt, or anyone was hurt, because when you have so many people around those areas - you know what kids are like going in our supermarkets. If you have taken young kids to a supermarket, you know how quickly they can move.

There are real challenges here. It is becoming a more densely populated area. That is a good thing for the area but we need to be sure that development meets all the requirements, including the traffic management matters, because they are crucial. Whilst the proponent said that they would not open the store unless there was proper parking and traffic, I think why do we not get that sorted first?