Planning in the Public Interest

Background to issue:

Attempts by the State Liberal government to introduce its controversial Development Assessment Panels (DAPS) has placed Tasmania’s planning system in the spotlight – with many in the community concerned it is under threat.

The objectives of the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) are defined clearly in our land use planning legislation as the following:

  • to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity
  • to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water
  • to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning
  • to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in the above paragraphs
  • to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of government, the community and industry in the State

Any changes to our planning laws must be evaluated against these objectives to test they meet and further those goals.

Unfortunately, the State Liberal government is set on attacking Tasmania’s planning system, by eroding the community’s and local government’s capacity and right to fully participate in planning processes.

In November 2024, the majority of the State Parliament’s Upper House (all Independent MLCs and Greens MLC) saw off and defeated the Liberal government’s controversial Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill 2024 which was opposed by many planning experts, community stakeholders and all 29 of the State’s local councils.

Despite this resounding defeat, the state government released in February 2025 a draft Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill 2025 making clear the government’s intent to pursue gutting our robust planning system.

My Position

I believe every Tasmanian has the right to participate in genuine consultation regarding land use planning changes which may impact where they live, work and play.

I support democratic planning rights of appeal for individuals and third parties.

I believe local councils have an important and integral role as planning authorities, which should be respected and supported by the State government.

I also believe our state political donations disclosures laws should prohibit political donations made by property developers, and have to move amendments to deliver this.

Over recent years, constituents, individuals with planning expertise and community organisations have raised with me a range of concerns including but not limited to:

  • Attempts to remove community involvement and participation in planning purposes;
  • Removal of planning from local elected members which risks eroding local strategic and also risks undermining local democracy;
  • Politicisation of the planning roles and processes, risking the perception of, and actual, political interference of the planning system;
  • The erosion and removal of merit appeal rights.
I voted against the State government’s Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Development Assessment Panels) Bill 2024, during the Upper House debate on the 28th of November last year as I believed it to be fundamentally undemocratic.  You can view my speech on the 2024 Bill here.

Specific concerns I raised during the November 2024 debate include:

  • the removal of the community from the proposed DAP process;
  • the lack of appeal rights;
  • the lack of any evidence proving there was a problem with our planning system, or why the proposed DPAs were necessary;
  • the lack of genuine consultation and engagement with local government; and
  • the rejection by all 29 local councils of the Bill.
 I stand by those concerns.

The objectives from our RMPS clearly place community involvement front and centre. Local community representation is about genuinely listening to, engaging with, and testing those expressed views.

Despite the government’s rhetoric, their continual push for their DAPS model is not about taking local politics out of planning, but is all about taking legitimate community involvement out of planning decision-making. It is not about a fair or equitable development assessment process, instead it is about providing a privileged approvals process for a few.

 

I will continue to stand against this erosion of our democratic community-focused planning system, and continue to stand up for planning in the public interest.

My Consideration of this Issue

Tasmanians deserve a robust, democratic, independent and equitable planning system.

I have attended, and participated in numerous planning reform community public meetings and panels, specifically regarding the government’s DAP model and draft legislation. 

Further, listening to the evidence put forward by planning authorities –  including the two local councils which span the Nelson electorate, the Kingborough Council and the Hobart City Council – other stakeholders with planning expertise, community organisations and concerned members of the electorate, it is clear that by most independent indicators Tasmania’s land use planning system is working well.

In fact, as highlighted by the Local Government Association Tasmania during the 2024 DAP Bill public debate, our current development assessment process is one of the most efficient nationwide.

Discretionary applications are being determined in a median time frame of 38 days, an average time frame of 40 days.  Permitted applications are being determined in 21 days.

When compared with application determination timeframes of other states, Tasmanian councils are on average six days faster than in South Australia, 15 days faster than in the NT, 21 days faster than in the ACT, 43 days faster than in New South Wales, 45 days faster than in Queensland, around 40 to 50 days faster than in WA, and 89 days faster than in Victoria.

Crucially, it is unclear what the problem is that apparently requires fixing via such drastic measures as the government’s ongoing push to introduce Development Assessment Panels (DAPS).

The government’s preferred DAP model is clearly contrary to the principles of good governance, an equal playing field for all, and democratic community and planning authority participation.

 

 

You can see below more of my work to protect our planning system and our rights: