Land Use Planning & Approvals Amendment (Supporting Development) bill (no 49) 2024

Wednesday 27 November 2024

[12.34 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, first, I agree with the member for McIntyre. Unfortunately, sometimes consultation might be taken, but you have to take notice of consultation as well, not just have it. It is a matter of listening as well as having consultation.

To me, this bill is a pragmatic adjustment to the planning framework. It targets the specific challenges faced by complex or technical development projects. Currently, the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, which we know probably could do with certainly a fair bit of work, allows a six-year time frame for substantial commencement of projects requiring planning permits. While it is adequate for standard developments, this time frame, as we have been told and we know, has proven restrictive for more complex projects, which often encounter delays due to their technical nature or factors beyond the proponents' control.

The proposed amendments - sections 42C and 53 of the act - provide a mechanism for the minister to grant a single additional two-year extension for eligible permits. I agree with the member for Murchison and others that the concern is with the minister having that complete control. I look forward to the amendments to be put by the member for Elwick. This is nothing against any minister, but you really do not know who is going to be minister or what ministers are there. This is nothing against the minister itself, but it would seem a sensible option for the councils, or those that actually have been in control initially, to actually take charge of this. The only thing is, councils often work with delegated authorities, so it is probably more of an automatic extension when it gets to the council. I do not believe it would be relooked at. It would simply be delegated authority.

One of the interesting things I have found with the council is that the more we have these bills - and, of course, we have three this week - is the fact that when I was on the council - and I can recall when they lost TasWater - the real concern with the council was that the more that planning was taken away from the council that eventually there would be no planning with the council. They lost their water and sewerage, or basically the proponent that TasWater took over. Lose planning, and what job does the council have to do?

I know that has always been an issue with the councils that I have dealt and spoken with in the past, that the more you actually take away from councils, the very less they have to do. Then, all of a sudden, the question is: is there a need to have councils at all?

I do have concerns there. I am really interested in listening to the contributions of the members, particularly the members who have not been on a council. I think that is really good, because those of us who have been on a council probably have a bit of a different perspective. We are used to planning and we are used to dealing with things at the table. It is really good to hear from people who actually have not been on a council. They come to it from a different aspect.

Getting back to the bill before us, the amendments here apply to projects linked to Local Provision Schedule (LPS) amendments, and those issued by councils in their capacity as planning authorities. Additionally, under this bill, the minister must be satisfied that such an extension is necessary due to the complexity of the project, and that it would enable its commencement. Aligning with the existing provisions under the major projects pathway, where extensions of up to eight years are permitted, the proposed changes ensure that the Tasmanian planning system accommodates the needs of more technically demanding developments.

While this is a minor amendment, its impact is significant for proponents of complex developments. By providing flexibility and preventing permits from lapsing prematurely, the bill supports the successful continuation of projects that safeguard investment and growth opportunities for the state.

As I have heard other members mention, I am leaning towards supporting it. I am certainly looking to hear the amendments from the member for Elwick. I believe that the bill is a welcome refinement to the planning framework. I just have a question regarding, as has been mentioned by other members, the minister having the control over that and whether there is, perhaps, another pathway to take.