Legislative Council, Thursday 28 November 2024

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - While I have been listening to other members, I have cut my speech right back you are pleased to hear. This legislation has sparked significant debate across various sectors in Tasmania. There has been strong opposition voiced by community groups, individual local government, mayors and GMs, LGAT and the Tasmanian Planning Commission itself, which all play pivotal roles in our planning framework and have a deep and enduring interest in what is built and where it is built in our state.

I, myself and most of these parties, including LGAT, are not opposed to the overall principle. I want to make that point. The government argues the bill introduces necessary reforms that could reduce politicisation and increase efficiency in handling development applications. That is a matter that could be debated. Well, we are debating it, but I am not going to go into the detail of the bill because that would be for a later time if we get there.

The government claims this bill, by establishing development assessment panels, aims to ensure that complex and potentially controversial projects are evaluated based on planning criteria alone, removing local political influences that may hinder development. This claim is that it could be crucial for advancing major projects, especially in areas of affordable housing, which I acknowledge is a priority for our state, but it is a disingenuous means of addressing some of the very real barriers in the way of delivering affordable housing in the state.

Many are concerned this bill will enable development for projects that are not supported by local communities and could impact on their way of life. Of course, there are cases where some individuals seek to oppose every development anywhere near them and oppose any change. Such opposition should not be able to stand in the way or prevent all development. But there should be an opportunity to possibly modify or adapt a proposal and respect the concerns of the community whilst also meeting the needs and desires of developers, where appropriate and needed development can proceed. That said, the opposition to this bill is widespread and significant.

All 29 local governments under the Local Government Association of Tasmania have unanimously rejected this legislation in its current form, expressing disappointment over the state government's approach to consultation. This sentiment is echoed by many community groups and individuals who have criticised both major political parties for rushing the bill into the parliament and suspension of Standing Orders to debate the parliament in the other place. I appreciate the fact sheet that was provided today and the list of changes made to the draft bill. However, a key stakeholder, the LGAT has stated it does not support its current form, though it is not opposed to the principle. I share this view.

It appears though that property developers have been much more engaged and deeply engaged with the government and or the minister on this bill. They have been engaged for over 18 months. When I asked Dion Lester(ok) about the engagement with LGAT, I asked him how long did the government work with the LGAT on the DAP? I was listening to the Property Council, which has said that the government has been working with them for 18 months. Mr Lester's response was they did not and just released the position paper with no consultation; 'He ignored our feedback and released the bill again with no direct consultation. I was pretty put out by that as Mr Lester was too. The Property Council also seemed to be very active proposing draft regulations it believes will meet its needs and the terminology around the use of that description is a bit off the mark, but it was clear it was busy drafting proposed regulations. I asked Mr Lester about that too and the LGAT had no engagement at all in that space.

I am concerned that without the support of LGAT and the local government bodies themselves, particularly those I represent who share this view, I am unable to support this bill as it is drafted. It does not mean I will not necessarily support a process should one be agreed by the LGAT and the councils I represent and other key stakeholders, not just the property developers.

I believe the LGAT and the councils I represent would support a bill that would have a more inclusive approach as they are key stakeholders. I believe the government needs to go back and fully engage with local government and come back with a bill that has their support. Should that occur, I would be more likely by far to support the implementation of development assessment panels.

In the Tasmanian Planning Commission submission on the draft bill, it outlined the preferred approach that retains a role for local councils in the initial stages of the planning, thus leveraging its existing resources and expertise. This approach includes councils receiving applications, conducting preliminary assessments and preparing draft permit conditions before forwarding complete application to DAP for the final determination. Such a model maintains local involvement transparency if the usual process is adopted or still aiming to depoliticise final decision making.

I would have thought it should have been the councils themselves that have a role in determining when a project may be beyond the capacity of the council to assess in a timely manner, including where these projects may raise matters of conflict of interest for local government elected members and/or the council is the proponent. Other submissions raise similar concerns. The TPC also criticised the draft bill for possibly creating a more adversarial and less accessible planning process, diverging from the commission's typically more inquisitorial approach which better facilitates public participation.

Critically, as we consistently see with this government, is the introduction of a new process that needs additional resourcing to succeed. The Planning Commission stressed the need for sufficient resources and a delayed commencement date to improve smooth implementations should the model be adopted. Whilst we are assured that adequate resourcing would be provided, this is not assured, but if it is seen to benefit developers, some of whom have been donors to the political parties, this may be the exception to the usual. However, it may be that this bill will actually create greater risk of approval to developers. They should be careful what they wish for. Strict adherence to the law under this proposed process could also see some projects rejected due to out-of-date legislation or other challenges. Perhaps the property developers should be careful what they are actually wishing for here.

We heard the member for Elwick went through the number of applications that local government actually refused. I will not repeat all that, but I will note in broad terms that our planning approval time is faster for discretionary applications than pretty much every other jurisdiction in the country and in terms of the appeals that have been heard by TasCAT, out of the 5300 discretionary applications, only six of those did TASCAT find contrary to the original decision of the Local Government Planning Authority.

The TPC suggests that rushing this process without adequate preparation could undermine the system's effectiveness and fairness. We know there were only seven days between closing submissions on the draft bill and the tabling of the bill in the parliament. No wonder local government are not happy.

The bill also provides no process for mediation, which figures have shown is an important mechanism. Whilst the stated intent behind the development assessment panels is to streamline and depoliticise the planning process, the feedback from many of those who engage in the consultation underscores the complex nature and potential pitfalls of the proposed system.

As we consider this bill, it is imperative we listen to those, many of whom are far more experienced than me in the planning space and fully consider their concerns. Our goal should be to enhance, not complicate our planning process and to protect the interests of all Tasmanians and create a confidence in the planning system for communities as well as developers. I am sure there are many of us who would agree the property developers have very different priorities and should not be seen to be having a disproportionate influence on planning without a thorough and rigorous process to support development.

So, where to with this bill? It is imperative that we consider these substantial concerns from our local governments, community groups and also those resourcing issues that were raised. I reiterate that I do agree there is a place for a process such as this, but sadly think this bill misses the mark and needs to be reconsidered and properly consulted, particularly with the local government bodies as well as property developers.

We must ensure that any legislative change will truly benefit Tasmania's communities and lead to more efficient and equitable planning outcomes for all. I am not convinced this bill achieves this and is not actually in the broad interest of all Tasmanians. In the absence of support for local government sector, I cannot support the bill.