Land Use Planning & Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill 2024 (No 53)

Thursday 28 November 2024

[4.38 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for the substantial briefings we had on both sides. I believe it is important to -

Mrs Hiscutt - I do try to keep it even.

Ms ARMITAGE - No. It was not. As I said, it is important to hear all sides. Sometimes you do hear something you did not expect and it can change your mind, or certainly make you reflect. That was not the case today but, on some occasions, it might be. I have to be honest here.

Ms Rattray - It is recorded, so if you are not, look out.

Ms ARMITAGE - Absolutely.

It is important to note the number of emails we received. It was pointed out to me, even in the submissions, with 482 submissions and 444 against the development assessment panels. I also note that many of the emails were actually a form email. In fairness to the people, there often were a paragraph or two of actual comment and phone numbers and addresses, which is really good to see, meaning they were quite happy to have some consultation or someone contact them and speak to them, which I did on a couple of occasions.

I have also had many emails and contact from local mayors and general managers. This is one time that I have really been surprised that it is the whole local government sector, which is really interesting. It has been said by other members, and very well put by the two previous speakers, that the whole local government sector, the whole 29 councils, agreed. I do not think that happens very often, that they have a unanimous vote.

One thing worth mentioning is that, and speaking to some of the councils and those involved, they were not necessarily against development assessment panels. That has also been mentioned by previous members. It is how they work and the fact that they do not consider that the current bill before us is workable.

I will read a comment from one of the councils - it was one of the submissions, so it is on the public record - that says the reason for the introduction of DAPs - we call them DAPs - appear to be based on anecdotal evidence that councils are acting beyond their authority in refusing certain applications. If this is the case, the merit-based appeals process currently in place provides an avenue for proponents to test that decision. The resources to establish and operate DAPs, considering the small number of potential instances where they may be justified, would be better spent on appropriately resourcing the State Strategic Planning Program to ensure that the Tasmanian planning policies and other planning instruments deliver the government's planning agenda in relation to affordable housing supply, rather than introducing an additional process which may not deliver the outcomes required. [TBC quote?]

I thought that was quite a good comment from one of the councils in the northern part of the state. I am sure that many of the other councils have similar feelings.

I will try not to repeat much of that stuff that has been said and I do intend to have a short contribution. It was also mentioned that local government tried to remain open to remaining with the government consultation on the DAPs, but they appeared to be rejected at every turn, as we were told this morning and that was told in the briefings. I took the notes. The sector asked the state government if they could work with them but it was ignored.  I have been in local government and one of my complaints many times with local government was, we consult but do we listen to the answers we get back? It is all very well to put consultation out, but if you take no notice of the information that comes back, you are not really consulting. It is almost like Clayton's consulting.

Feedback that councils provided on the position paper, in the opinion of LGAT was ignored. As was mentioned, in the local government sector, the planning staff assessment process is more than 12,000 assessments a year, and this bill will insert politics into planning. Land use is complex, and this bill is complex. The consultation was tokenistic. I do not believe they are words that the briefers use, you know, willy-nilly. It is something they obviously felt quite passionate about to be saying this in the briefing of the Legislative Council.

It was also mentioned that they were not opposed to development assessment panels as mentioned, but they are opposed to this bill, and that it was felt that this bill cannot be successfully amended. I noticed one of the briefers said this morning that they support a bill that provides more certainty for developers. I was tempted to make the comment, 'But what about this bill?'. Everyone supports a bill that does that, but does this bill do that? From what we have heard from many people this morning, I do not believe this bill does.

In LGAT's briefing paper, the state government has chosen to blame councils for a very small number of planning decisions, but it fails to comprehend that these are the results of the planning system that the government is responsible for and has failed to maintain. An investigation of our planning framework finds the following. They have mentioned that about the outdated Land Use Planning Approvals Act. In my mind, I could read some of the speech that I read yesterday. Our planning legislation, the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, is over three decades old. It needs review and as has been commented here in the LGAT briefing paper, it was literally made for a different century. Perhaps the government could spend their time looking at that. Much of this has actually been mentioned by the previous speakers and I do intend my contribution to be short.

Another comment from another councillor was, 'In summary, we remain opposed to the proposed DAP framework in its current form'.  To me, that is what it is all about. I do not need to read lots of submissions. I have lots of submissions here from the councils and people who have written to us. What it really comes down to is that the majority of people, the local councils remain opposed to this development assessment panel in its current form. They do not believe it actually can be amended and it should not be amended on the run. They could not give any suggestions about how it could be amended because they did not think it should be done. Realistically, what the government should be doing is taking it back themselves, working with the councils, consulting not tokenistically with the councils, but actually consulting with the councils.

Mr President, if you give me a little leeway. A comment was made by the member for McIntyre about the possibility of coming to our Committee B.  Should it be up to us to fix this bill? Should the Legislative Council do it? How many times do we hear them say downstairs, or we hear the rumour, 'Do not worry about it, they fix it when it gets upstairs'? Is it our job to fix the mess they have made? Should they not take it back, consult with the very people who are involved and make sure it is fit for purpose? Should it be fixed by us through a committee process, or should the government actually consult with the stakeholders such as the councils in LGAT to find a workable solution and make it a good bill? That is what is on my mind.

It is not up to us. Sometimes, we can make suggestions and recommendations, but it does not mean the government is going to take any more notice of our recommendations than they have of the local councils and what they have recommended. We can spend weeks, months and how often do we have SIPs? We call them SIPs, but I do not remember us having too many short inquiry processes. We can spend a lot of money and time consulting, doing things, putting it all together but, at the end of the day, we do recommendations that are totally ignored. What a waste of time.

Ms Rattray - The bill into the committee is somewhat different than a committee inquiry like we are undertaking at the moment in Committee B. The bill will not go anywhere until the committee has reported, whatever that might look like.

Ms ARMITAGE - In responding to the member for McIntyre, that would probably mean amendments and we have already been told this bill is unamendable. As far as I am concerned it is up to the government to work with the local councils, not up to us to fix their bill. It is up to them to work with the local councils, listen to them for a change, see what they consider workable, resource people adequately and do their job. It is not up to us to do their job. It is up to them. As far as I am concerned, I do not support the bill.

Mr PRESIDENT - You still have four other choices there.