Huntingfield Rezoning Disallowance Motion
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I move –
That the Legislative Council, in accordance with section 9(4) of the Housing Land Supply Act 2018, disallow the proposed Housing Land Supply (Huntingfield) Order 2019 which was laid on the Table of the Council on 6 September 2019.
I have spent my career working with, standing alongside and fighting for vulnerable people in our state. The most recent decade of my working life has been in the area of social policy, research and advocacy. Throughout that time, I have specifically worked in the area of research, policy, policy development and advocacy on affordable housing.
This work has included numerous policy submissions, state budget submissions, stakeholder consultations, public forums, consumer consultations and the production of three Tasmanian rental affordability snapshots in my recent time with Anglicare’s Social Action and Research Centre.
I confidently stand here speaking to you as someone who has a high level of expertise in affordable housing research, evidence and policy, and is widely recognised as a passionate advocate for public, social and affordable housing in this state.
I state this to ensure that from the outset of moving this disallowance motion on the Housing Land Supply (Huntingfield) Order 2019 it is clear I am someone who wants to see every avenue for the provision of public, social and affordable housing strenuously pursued in this state. I know from my extensive experience that there is an urgent need for more public, social and affordable housing in Tasmania, particularly in the Greater Hobart area.
I want to be very clear on why I am moving this disallowance; I want to be very clear on what it is and is not about. I am for more housing development in our state, especially public, social and affordable housing. I am for housing development on this Huntingfield site, especially to maximise public, social and affordable housing. I am for having the option of a fast-tracked rezoning process to expedite social and affordable housing development. I am certain that the plans being developed for the Huntingfield site have merit.
This disallowance is not about any of those things. It is squarely about process – process and people. I am moving this disallowance because an inappropriate process has been used in relation to the rezoning of this parcel of land at Huntingfield. In my view it was a mistake to use the legislated fast-track process to undertake this rezoning of the Huntingfield site. Using this process was unnecessary and has caused considerable concern and distress in the community. In fact, sadly, I fear it may have jeopardised community support for an eventual positive development on this site.
On 25 July 2019 I attended the ‘standing room only’ public meeting at the Kingston Hub. It was convened to share information about the Huntingfield rezoning process and to air the community’s concerns and questions. The Kingborough community present at the meeting passed the following resolution –
The meeting calls on the Tasmanian Parliament to reject the proposed Housing Supply Order for Huntingfield and for the Government to proceed with any future rezoning proposals through the standard planning scheme amendment process.
Subsequent to that very large community meeting, we heard from dozens and dozens of community members on this matter, all of whom made the same request – that the usual process be followed in the rezoning of the Huntingfield redevelopment. I believe this is a reasonable and appropriate request to make.
I will speak briefly about the affordable housing situation in this state. In the original Affordable Housing Strategy 2015-2025 released in 2015, it was already identified that our state had a significant need for more public, social and affordable housing. The demand projections in the original strategy and the action plan that sat under it were that our state would require somewhere in the vicinity of 600 new affordable homes per year across the life of that strategy.
Since then, we have likely seen those projections blown out of the water with the rapid escalation of what we now call the ‘housing crisis’ in Tasmania, the severe shortage, particularly in the Greater Hobart area, of housing, especially of public, social and affordable housing. This escalation was driven by the confluence of a range of factors, a perfect storm which landed on a state that had experienced decades of housing underinvestment and neglect by a succession of state and federal governments of all political persuasions.
Good preparation and a state of readiness can help best weather a storm. When it comes to public, social and affordable housing, Tasmania was not in a state of good preparation and readiness.
The policy and budgetary choices of state and federal governments over many years led us to this crisis and now we see our current state Government scrambling to best triage the acute crisis we find ourselves in. We feel for it in doing that.
Around 3300 people are on the public housing waiting list, with one-third of those aged under 25. Those in priority one category have a wait of around 66 weeks to be housed. We have seen dramatic and unconstrained increases in rent in the private rental sector, with many families facing rent hikes of $50 to $100 per week at one time, and sometimes repeated dramatic hikes within a year or two. Unlike some other jurisdictions, our state legislation – the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 -lacks protection to prevent such dramatic and regular increases to private rents.
Data from the University of Tasmania – UTAS – indicates we have lost possibly 800 houses in Hobart from the private rental market to the short-term stay accommodation market, to entities such as Airbnb. We had a housing crisis last winter in 2018, a housing crisis this winter in 2019 and I suggest it is likely we will be talking about a housing crisis next winter, when we will yet again see tents and cars becoming visible in public areas as more individuals and families face the cold reality of homelessness.
There has been additional investment under the Affordable Housing Strategy 2015-2025 and the action plans that sit under the strategy. However, according to a UTAS report it appears the first action plan overall resulted in less public and social housing in this state.
There has been more investment from the state Government in crisis responses and that makes an enormous difference to people at the most immediate risk. There have been discussions and implementation of some medium- and longer term responses. These have been a good start towards longer term change.
It has been identified we need to better understand the demand in this equation. What kind of housing is needed? Where is it needed now and into the future? Recently, the housing debt to the Commonwealth was waived. I thank those I have stood alongside for many years advocating for that outcome, and to Senator Jacquie Lambie for pushing it over the line in recent times.
Good efforts have been made, but the first affordable housing action plan has underdelivered. In some ways, the trajectory of the Huntingfield site has been an example of that underdelivery. For 45 years, Housing Tasmania has planned to have housing development on the Huntingfield site. Development there has long been supported by the local community and local council and yet it is delayed and delayed.
The state Government could have fulfilled its own plans for the site and met its own time frames laid out in the first affordable housing action plan. Had it done so, we would likely have families in homes in the Huntingfield development right now. It is important to remember that when we discuss the concept of urgency here today.
It is important to remember that when we talk about the case being made to invoke emergency processes for the purpose of saving time – a period that likely amounts to six months. No such urgent imperative has been brought to bear at any time across the past four years that this particular parcel of land has been slated for a master planning process and development in the state Government’s affordable housing action plan.
I want to see an excellent best practice housing development on the site, one which prioritises the best public and social housing outcomes. This site has always had, and continues to have, the potential to be an exemplary and valuable addition to the Kingborough community and to social and affordable housing in our state.
The question is: could we have delivered that potential through the usual processes established in our planning system, in particular through the usual rezoning processes? That is the element in question in relation to this housing supply order.
Let us talk about that usual process. Under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 – LUPAA – only a local council can initiate amendment of a planning scheme to rezone land or modify a planning scheme provision. This is our current agreed process. It may not be a perfect process. I know our planning scheme is in the process of review and change at the moment and there is contention about various aspects of that. I will not enter into that debate today.
What we do have is the current usual process for rezoning which sits with the local councils to initiate and involves the Tasmanian Planning Commission – TPC – for a second level of independent, rigorous assessment. This is a process that we as a community have established as the appropriate way to consider rezoning of land in our state to ensure the best outcomes are achieved for our community.
Land planning processes allow time for all stakeholders to have a say on development, and for normal and necessary assessments to take place. The provisions in LUPAA allow for a full and transparent assessment of proposals. Specifically, it involves a consultation period of 30 days. The consultation opportunity is publicly advertised and open to everyone in the community. Input received through the open consultation is considered by the local council and may result in changes, amendments or adjustments. When supported by a vote of the full council, it is then sent to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for a further stage of examination and approval.
At this stage, there is also a further opportunity for community submission and input to be considered by the TPC. This is our agreed usual process. It is transparent and accountable. It has elements of natural justice that allow those who may be impacted to participate and be heard.
Now let us talk about the new process legislated. In March last year, in response to the heavy media coverage leading into the first winter of the housing crisis, the state Government held a housing summit with key stakeholders. As a result, commitments were made for some additional funding of crisis support, and some new measures were proposed and progressed to assist with more medium- to long-term housing outcomes.
One measure introduced was an alternative fast-track mechanism for rezoning what was described as ‘surplus government land’, for the purpose of providing additional parcels of land for public, social and affordable housing.
How did this process brought in under the Housing Land Supply Act 2018 in June last year differ from our usual process? This fast-track process for rezoning allowed the Government, rather than a local council, to initiate an amendment to the planning scheme. The stated intent of the fast‑tracked rezoning process was to reduce the time frame of the standard rezoning process by up to six months, from an average of nine months down to three months.
I point out that in March last year when it was announced and in June last year when it was passed, according to the Government’s own quarterly housing reports on Tasmania’s Affordable Housing Action Plan 2015-2019, the master plan for the development of Huntingfield was already up to nine months behind schedule. I will come back to that a little later.
The fast-track process saves this average of six months by bypassing normal statutory planning processes and public consultation periods. It sets a public consultation period of 14 days, half that of the regular process. Rather than an open public consultation, including public advertising, it is an invitation-only consultation with interested stakeholders being determined by the Government as the initiator of the amendment. Interested stakeholders appear to include properties immediately adjacent to the parcel of land and state departments and agencies, but not the broader community.
In creating the fast-track process, the Government purported to maintain the same important considerations for assessing a rezoning proposal that would be found in the usual process. However, as a one-step process with no additional rigorous assessment and accountability to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, it can hardly be considered that such maintenance has occurred.
They also claimed the fast-track process has a similar consultation opportunity for the community. Clearly, this is not true on paper and nor is this the experience of at least 300 people who attended the public meeting in July this year and the dozens of people who have directly contacted us and asked for the opportunity to use the regular process for the Huntingfield site instead of the fast-track one.
I want to be clear on my position on the fast-track process introduced last year. The legislation that passed through the House last year delivered an option for the Government to consider using in efforts to combat the housing crisis we face. It was an option tailored to identify parcels of state-owned land suitable for affordable housing development which required rezoning in order to expedite that development.
This tailored option was a useful tool to introduce. It is important to note that its introduction provided an option to use when appropriate. It was not made with the assumption of use for all government-owned land and rezoning.
There is nothing to say that from that time all parcels of state-owned land suitable for affordable housing development requiring rezoning to progress for that development must or should be funnelled through that fast-track process.
Moving this disallowance motion is not a global disavowal of the fast-track process. I support having and using the fast-track mechanism where appropriate and when the manner in which it differs from the regular process does not result in a process that would not meet our good governance standards.
I am against using a fast-track process without due consideration of appropriateness and impact. I question the use of this process in situations that appear to be more about political expediency and convenience rather than reasons of appropriateness. I think that in every instance the use of a fast-track process is contemplated, accountable and robust due consideration should be given to the motivation for its use, the relevance of its applicability in that instance and the impact its use may have. In every individual instance of its use, a very clear and compelling case should be made for why it is the appropriate mechanism rather than the usual process. I do not believe this is what has happened in an accountable way in relation to the Huntingfield development.
In June last year, when the fast-track process was legislated, it was asserted that 700 to 800 dwellings in the potential parcels of land were lined up and ready to go. I quote the minister’s comments from Hansard at that time –
In a list in front of me I have five sites identified, and possibly three others, ranging in size from two potential dwellings to several hundred, and 15 to 20 quite different examples.
There would be half a dozen or more that would be prepared if this bill passes the upper House next week, between now and our next sitting week, in order to be aiming to have the first orders in front [of] the next sitting of parliament for disallowance or otherwise.
From that reference to 700 to 800 dwellings made at the time, it is hard not to assume it was already known and planned that the Huntingfield rezoning was planned to be included and that it accounted for a good slice of those anticipated dwellings. Yet, rather than the order being ready in the next sitting of parliament, it has taken well over a year for it to arrive with us – time in which, I suggest, the usual process could well have been contemplated and utilised.
I will talk now about the use of the new legislation so far. Since its introduction last year, this fast-track process has been successfully and, I believe, uncontroversially used four times to progress affordable housing developments in areas across the state. Those four times were: a site in Newnham, a site in Rokeby, a site in Devonport and another site in West Moonah. These four instances provided a combined total of 6.7 hectares of housing development and are expected to deliver around 220 dwellings. Each were small parcels of land in well-developed urban and suburban areas with the capacity to make modest increases in Tasmania’s social and affordable housing stocks.
Each of these sites meet the requirements of the Housing Land Supply Order in that, for example, the land is close to services, public transport and employment opportunities. The rezoning is in keeping with the relevant local and state planning schemes with minimum lot sizes appropriate to the area, and there is no significant land use conflict with any land surrounding the order sites. Given the relatively small size of these developments, it is also possible that the subdivision and new dwellings would be constructed quickly, thereby meeting our sense of urgency in getting vulnerable Tasmanians into secure affordable homes.
So, what is different in the Huntingfield development? The Huntingfield Housing Land Supply Order is the fifth time the state Government has sought to the use the Housing Land Supply Act.
What is different about this time? It is clearly not in keeping with the previous four instances. Compared to the four instances that totalled 6.7 hectares, Huntingfield has 34 hectares of housing development. It presents the complexity of a whole suburb development rather than a discrete parcel of surplus land. There is a longstanding intent and planning for development of this site. The proposal presents a deviation from the relevant local and state planning schemes, with minimum lot sizes significantly different to the local surrounding area.
A high level of community consternation and alarm has been generated, including strenuous objection from the local council at the use of a fast-track process. Given those different circumstances, between the other examples of the Housing Land Supply Act being used and a proposal to use it at Huntingfield, we have to ask ourselves: has the case been sufficiently made to override the usual process and use the fast-track process?
Mr President, I do not believe the case has been made by the minister in this instance. We, in this place, are the only mechanism available to the community to hold the Government to account on that. That is a key basis for my moving this disallowance motion.
The Tasmanian Government has owned this land for 45 years. We know it is located within the Greater Hobart urban growth boundary. It is a greenfield development precinct under the Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy. It has been identified for housing development under the Kingborough Land Use Strategy, endorsed by the Kingborough Council in 2014, and in May this year. It would not be described by anyone’s stretch of the imagination as surplus government-owned land.
The Housing Land Supply Act 2018 has been in place for 12 months. There has been plenty of time for the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Planning, the same person, to undertake appropriate and standard planning and community consultation. There have also been other reiterations of proposed development at the Huntingfield site that have not been finalised within committed time lines documented in the Government’s own plans and strategies. All of this speaks to the fact that the urgent imperative that is argued in support of the fast-track process is a convenience rather than a reality when we are speaking about the Huntingfield site. Where was the same sense of urgent imperative across the last four years when it was supposed to have been progressed under the affordable action housing plan?
I will speak briefly now about the lack of community consultation. This is an issue that, for me, sits at the heart of this disallowance motion. The Government claims the consultation conducted under the fast-track rezoning is similar, or comparable, to that which would have occurred under the usual process. This is disingenuous. Consultation around this order has been limited to the neighbouring landowners and the Kingborough Council, as well as relevant state agencies, services and infrastructure providers, such as neighbouring schools and similar entities.
The general community has been excluded. Because the general community is excluded under the Housing Land Supply Act, that is a significant deviation from the usual process and challenges the claim that it is similar or comparable. Not only is it limited in scope, but also the time frame for consultation is half that of the usual process, a particular challenge, I suggest, for those regular citizens who are invited consultees.
I think most of us would agree that responding to a very sizeable planning amendment proposal within 14 days of its arriving out of the blue in our letterbox would present an enormous challenge to many of our constituents. Yet, in regard to the Huntingfield proposal some managed to meet the challenge. Fifty-two submissions were received – 11 from interested persons invited to participate, 41 from the broader community. Those 41 were in response to a process from which they were technically excluded from participating in.
The order before us makes note of the fact the Government is under no obligation to consider matters raised and submissions, other than those from interested persons. Further, as already mentioned, separate and subsequent to the official consultation, over 300 people attended the public meeting about this development. Members of this place, including myself, have received dozens and dozens of communications asking the order be rejected and normal planning processes followed for its development.
Under the fast-track rezoning process and once this order has been enacted through this House, there will be almost nothing the community or other stakeholders can do to appeal the merits of the order or address elements of concern within the normal development assessment process administered by the Kingborough Council under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
While the Government has repeatedly asserted the community will have the opportunity to have a say in the next stage, this is misleading in respect to some of the concerns that can only be dealt with at this stage of the process. The community can only be heard on those at this stage of the process and it has been excluded from that process.
Once certain elements are confirmed in this rezoning process, subdivision and development applications that are compliant with the permitted pathways, it will not be required to go through council and there will not be an opportunity to further influence them. My colleagues here who have more experience than I in local government will likely understand this aspect better. Certainly for me, the repeated insistence on supposed future opportunities for community input and influence holds scant comfort and has a ring of a distraction to them.
What is gained and what is lost in this instance? In essence, three important questions must be asked, weighed up and accountably answered before using this fast-track process. What do we lose under a fast-track process? What is it we gain and what other impact might it have?
It has been politically expedient for the minister and the Government to continually seek to frame this in ways that set up a false choice. A choice between the rights and interests of local community members in Huntingfield to have a say versus responding to the needs of our state to deliver more affordable housing.
It is a terrible shame to pit those vulnerable Tasmanians on the housing register against those in the Kingborough community who are dismayed at being excluded from a process that lacks accountability.
This is the same minister who, at best, is two years late in delivering a master plan for this site. Two years is a long time. If the Government and the minister had kept to their word, we could possibly have seen homeless Tasmanian families from our housing register with a roof over their heads in Huntingfield right now.
The choice was never the fast-track process or no development. I repeat: the choice was never the fast-track process or no development. The choice has only ever been to have a fast-track process or the usual process. The development has been on the cards for 45 years. It has had the support of the council and the local community for decades. This has only ever been a political choice between using the normal amendment process through local council or a fast-track process that is less accountable. It is a process that may allow them to make up some lost time because they themselves have fallen behind on their own commitments.
In choosing to use the fast-track process, the Government has effectively said the potential to shorten the development time line by a few months outweighs the value of following a usual process which encompasses what we have agreed is appropriate community engagement and input and a sense of natural justice.
Parliament is not a planning authority. With all due respect to many of my colleagues in this place who have valuable and extensive experience in local government, this place is not the entity usually tasked with or accountable for planning activities in our state. That authority is usually designated elsewhere, expect now in respect to orders made under the Housing Land Supply Act from 2018.
We could perhaps reflect on other ill-conceived instances when it was attempted to make parliament a planning authority to override the usual authority of local government, but I do not want us to be distracted by the ghosts of pulp mills past, so I will move on. The fact that parliament is not a planning authority was raised as a concern when the Housing Land Supply Bill was brought to the other place last year. Indeed, in relation to that, it was described as uncharted territory to have parliament in this role.
Here, we have no mechanism to use to robustly assess this order as a planning authority. There is no appeal mechanism or further rigorous and expert assessment such as that offered by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. What we do know, as we face this task for which we are not well equipped, is that there is considerable consternation in the community and much discussion and debate on details of the proposal in relation to planning matters such as density, services, transport and traffic.
A key reason I am moving this disallowance motion is because I believe the use of fast-track legislation for this particular parcel of land is forcing parliament to act as a planning authority on a matter of distinct complexity. That is inappropriate. Not every use of the fast-track process would present such an issue and put parliament in such an inappropriate position. We have had four other examples where that has not been the case; and we will have future examples where that will not be the case.
However, due to its size, complexity, history and community impact, this parcel of land is above what should be considered as a fast-track process with only parliament in its limited capacity to assess. I have looked to see and listened to hear a robust rationale for the use of this fast-track process in relation to Huntingfield. I have neither seen nor heard one that stacks up in the face of the impact that we have seen it cause in the community of Kingborough and beyond. It is hard to see how the decision to use the fast-track process is anything other than pure expediency and political convenience.
For a development of this size and complexity, the community deserves better than this. I know that most people who have been in contact with us have raised a series of specific concerns about the zoning and development.
I am reluctant to speak in detail in this context about the many specific concerns that the community, the local council and other stakeholders have raised. I am reluctant to do that because I think examining and assessing those concerns in detail here is going down the path of making parliament a planning authority, which, as I have already mentioned, is something I find inappropriate about this particular process in its complexity.
I note that the Housing Land Supply Act specifies land is only eligible for rezoning under the fast-track process if it is close to public and commercial services, public transport and places that provide opportunities that provide opportunities for employment. There is ample evidence of a high level of concern from the Kingborough Council and in the local community about the capacity of the proposed order for Huntingfield to meet those criteria.
In the face of that concern, even with some adjustments made to the consultation version of the order, I believe insufficient evidence is presented in the final Huntingfield order that these stipulations have been met. There are a range of concerns: public transport to the area is limited; the existing road network is already under pressure; and access to childcare, health and emergency services is inadequate. Given the profile and the mix of housing intended for the site with public, social and affordable components included, it is especially crucial that the inadequate soft and hard infrastructure does not compound the level of disadvantage of prospective residents.
Mr President, here are some of the things said in the passage of the Housing Land Supply Act 2018, and I quote –
The normal assessment processes for rezoning land under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 will be overridden to enable the prompt but appropriate rezoning of identified areas of surplus crown land and land owned by Housing Tasmania.
‘Prompt but appropriate’, I note. It was put another way –
This refined bill delivers on what the Government committed to do, to fast-track zoning changes for identified surplus government land, and the Government has achieved this without compromising the existing land use planning considerations.
‘Without compromising the existing land use planning considerations’.
Claims that the fast-track zoning is consistent with existing land use planning considerations, I think in this instance, relating to Huntingfield, is incorrect and misleading. Claims made that the zoning of the Huntingfield order is consistent with the adjoining land and recent development approved by Kingborough Council in nearby Spring Farm development, I think, is also misleading. If this were the case, why would we not have entrusted the rezoning process to the Kingborough Council and had confidence that the similarity would count in favour of an efficient passage through that process?
In reality, and on assessment of the Kingborough Council, the zoning in the proposed order is not consistent with or similar to the nearby Spring Farm development. It is further in distance from the Kingston CBD. The Spring Farm development in its distance from the CBD was determined to have an appropriate level of 10 per cent for inner residential zoning. Huntingfield is a further kilometre away – three kilometres – from the Kingston CBD. This proposal had it at 50 per cent inner residential zoning.
Specific concerns raised about these matters and the assessment of their merits are not the basis for this disallowance motion that I move. The basis of this disallowance motion is that it should not be the role of parliament in the context of a truncated process with limited accountability to be making such determinations on an amendment of such complexity and potential impact.
Mr President, I shall read from some correspondence we received from the Kingborough mayor very recently on this matter –
Ms Rattray – Is that yesterday’s?
Mrs Hiscutt – What’s the date of that letter?
Ms WEBB – I think it arrived into our inboxes around 12.30 this morning.
Mrs Hiscutt – I note it is disappointing that the two Government members in this room were omitted from that email. I presume that was a mistake?
Ms WEBB – I cannot comment on that. I can comment on what arrived to me, personally, and I believed to all members.
Mrs Hiscutt – It hasn’t come to us.
Ms WEBB – This is just a section from the correspondence –
Mr Dean – Was that emailed to us?
Ms WEBB – I believe so.
Ms Rattray – It was at 12.25 a.m. Another elected member working 24/7.
Ms WEBB – I quote –
The refusal by the Minister and his Department to properly engage with the local community in any meaningful way has been a leading factor in the angst that this proposal has created. Every Member of Parliament should be aware of the basic principles of engagement. Sadly, the Minister has executed a disappointing showcase on how not to approach engagement, particularly around a development of this size and scale.
This is a large subdivision by any standard. The reason we have a planning scheme amendment process that is rigorous is to make sure we get it right. We should expect developments like this to be in place for decades. The Housing Minister and his Department being under pressure does not excuse less robust planning. Irrespective of what happens with this Order, MLCs should insist that this process is not used for future developments of this size and scale.
Had this proposal been dealt with through the standard processes, it would not have generated such a high level of concern. It would not have taken significantly longer and the result, through collaboration with Council and the community, would have been a better development.
Even at this point of the proposal, with significant changes having been made to the first draft, the community has not been afforded the respect of any form of engagement to explain the changes. Wherever I go across my municipality, I am asked about Huntingfield. The order is not available for public comment, not on public exhibition and even if someone was to track down a copy of the Order, they would need to carefully read at least 30 pages of the report to fully understand what is proposed.
It is significant for us to hear that sort of communication from the local mayor. Again, perhaps those in this place who have local government experience would wonder whether local governments around the state may find themselves giving pause, observing what is happening with this situation in Huntingfield and the way the local council and its concerns and aspirations are not being met.
I further quote from the mayor’s letter. The Mayor of Kingborough says –
When the Parliament passed the Housing Land Supply Act 2018, it did so to allow for a faster response to the housing shortage. However, I suspect the Parliament did not foresee that the Minister would use the powers provided to him to deliver amendments to the planning scheme that would not normally be accepted by local Councils or, I suspect, the Tasmanian Planning Commission.
I wonder whether members here and in the other place who voted for the legislation last year expected that it would be used in this kind of circumstance. I note that in the discussion on the bill as it passed through both Houses last year, among the many issues and possible concerns discussed, there appears to have been absolutely no contemplation or discussion of a circumstance in which considerable community disquiet might be caused by its use. Was it assumed there would not ever be substantial community dissatisfaction with the process? Did members perhaps anticipate that the parcels to be brought through this process would likely be unremarkable and uncontroversial? It is difficult to speculate on why our elected representatives did not raise discussion of that possibility in the creation of an alternative planning process that significantly curtails the consultation and involvement of the community.
Had they raised it for discussion, the discussion may have resulted in some further parameters being put in place within the legislation to obviate the kind of circumstance we find ourselves in today.
Perhaps it is as simple as acknowledging that we are all human and that sometimes in our desire to do the right thing and to achieve the best positive outcome, we overlook potential pitfalls or unintended consequences.
If that is the case, it is important to recognise when you have been wrong and to fix it. Huntingfield is one of the last greenfield sites in Kingborough. It is an opportunity to develop a neighbourhood based on best practice and on research that proves that great design supports great lives and the opportunity to build a suburb that people want to live in with pride.
This disallowance motion is made in support of that outcome. We can reach that outcome by following an appropriate, respectful, robust and accountable path. We do not have to choose one or the other, but destination is not the only consideration. How you get there matters. It matters on principle. When we disregard our agreed processes, we devalue good governance and we undermine community confidence. We set a precedent.
It matters to those who will feel the impact of the final result, both the beneficial impact and the possible negative impact, because on all sides of this equation, we are talking about people’s lives: it is their homes, their neighbourhood, the place where they belong and part of their identity.
This is not a number on a page to be rolled out in Estimates next year in an attempt to demonstrate adequate progress has been achieved. This is about real people – the people we represent and are responsible to. On that basis I ask members here to support this disallowance motion.
More parliamentary speeches by Hon Meg Webb MLC
