Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Tasmanian Planning Scheme Modification) Bill 2021

Speech in support of Motion – That the Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment Tasmanian Planning Scheme Modification Bill 2021 (No. 13) be referred to Government Administration Committee A for further consideration and report (speech text below).   

Speech in response – LUPAA (Tasmanian Planning Scheme Modifications) Bill 2021 (speech text below).   

Meg Webb speech to the Motion

(see below for speech to the Bill)

That the Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment Tasmanian Planning Scheme Modification Bill 2021 (No. 13) be referred to Government Administration Committee A for further consideration and report.

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Deputy President, I will speak on the motion that has been put to us by the member for Hobart; we share the council in common.  The council the member has been referring to as having concerns is also a part of my electorate, so we have some commonality there in what matters we might consider.

I acknowledge the work done on the bill – it is substantial, and the consultation that occurred is substantial.  We had a good briefing pack that outlined many matters covered in that space and I appreciate that.

While I recognise that 12 weeks sounds like a long time for consultation, it should also be on the record that it was extended.  Initially it was scheduled to be over the Christmas and holiday period, which I believe is an appalling time to expect any member of the public to contribute.  No?  I am being told no with some shakes of heads.  Perhaps that could be clarified on the record.

Mrs Hiscutt – I have heard people say the opposite – that it gives them the time to think about it.  We will have to have several different opinions here.

Ms WEBB – Duration of time gives people time to think about it so it is excellent that it was 12 weeks in the end, especially if that did capture some time that was difficult for people to engage.  I will leave it at that.

We have had it in our inboxes since March, but then we also have not been sitting since March.  I remind everyone this is our third sitting week for the year in this place, so we have not had a chance to come together to even contemplate whether this would need to go to a committee.  This is our first opportunity to do that.  I appreciate that we have the opportunity to consider that.

There are members of the community who may have been keeping an eye out for this bill to come to parliament to be considered.  They would have only been aware recently that it was going to be dealt with by both Chambers in this sitting period.  A person in the community who had an interest in this bill would not have known until Monday evening this week that it had gone through the other place late last week.  I was keeping an eye on the parliament’s website to see when this bill had passed the other place last week and to have that Hansard.

That might be a trigger for you to then engage with us here in this place, knowing it would be coming to us.  That did not occur.  That information was not available on the parliamentary website until Monday evening.  That is a very short time ago for any interested members of the community to come forward and interact with us about it, knowing it had now finally come to parliament.  I make the point, it is generally at the time things are brought to us in parliament that people engage with us, not necessarily when it first lands in our inbox, because members of the public are not in control of when those things are then brought.

I acknowledge some of the matters the member for Hobart has outlined as peoples’ concerns.  There is and remain concerns out there expressed to us quite clearly.  While we have heard this is a simple bill and there are simple parts to it, it also complex.  Planning is always complex and even an amendment bill is always complex.  It is difficult to contemplate when we are hearing concerns and then we are trying to synthesis that with also information received through our briefings and sources.

It is an interesting time to be asked to think about the system we have put in place within this place with Government Admin A and Government Admin B committees and the portfolio allocation under those.  Whether that works well and is available to us to further examine bills with some level of complexity or level of things we perhaps need to give some thought or even time on the public record through an inquiry.

I note while the motion cannot specify what manner of inquiry would occur if this was passed and went to Government Admin A, I am on that committee and have heard the proposal put verbally, while not in the motion that it would be a short inquiry process.  That is a formal process put in place within those committees.  It does not just mean we will try to keep it as quick as possible.  It is a formal, shortened process for inquiries so they do not, as the member for Hobart says, ‘become too protracted’.  They are able to be done in a short, sharp fashion.  The value of those short inquiry processes is they are quite lithe.  The briefing process that occurs for us ahead of bills coming where we are briefed in an informal way and might have other stakeholders – beyond the department stakeholders – come and brief us and that happens off the public record for our benefit and then what we have gleaned from that to this chamber when we are considering a bill.

A short inquiry process is a valuable way of putting more formality around the process that already happens so it becomes part of the public record.  A short inquiry process would simply be a replication of some of that, but on the public record.  Then the committee would do a report to bring to this Chamber for consideration or for extra information of members to consider when we look at the bill.

We have done that short inquiry process before in Government Admin A.  They can be done in a very expedited fashion.  The next opportunity we might have to deal with this bill and the duration and between that would be when we sit in August.  There is a Government business day prior to the state budget, Wednesday, 25 August, so there is potential for this process if it goes to Government Admin A – engaged in a short inquiry process – that could be done in the intervening interval with that less than two months away.

In supporting the member’s motion, we are talking about potentially inserting a two-month delay into the passage of this bill.  The value we get is we have a whole range of matters that people have had concerns about, examined more formally and on the public record.  We can then work to allay those concerns and also clarify for members here so that we can have full confidence as members when we do then address the bill in the Chamber.  To me, that is a valuable pay off for a delay of two months.  What we heard from the minister when the minister briefed us this morning – and it was excellent to have him come and be available to do that.  We put the essence of what we wanted to hear from the minister, what are the time sensitivities in this bill?  That is relevant now to think about in terms of whether we were to support this motion and put the bill to a short delay potentially for an inquiry process.

The minister alerted us to two elements in the bill that from his perspective were time sensitive and they were interested in having it passed as quickly as possible in order to see those come to resolution.  One of them related to the treatment of substantial modifications to draft LPS so that the vast part of an approved LPS could go through and a substantial modification that had been directed could be dealt with as an amendment.  When we dug into that a bit further we found that is relevant to one council area presently, Clarence, where were this is bill to pass, that could then allow the LPS to come on board in large part and then have a substantial modification be dealt with as an amendment.  So, it would come on board more quickly.

Ms Rattray – Was it Central Coast as well?

Ms WEBB – They are already past the point.  That was my understanding.  If there was a delay there may be four to five other councils that would be put it in the position of it having the more protracted time frame rather than a potentially shorter time frame that is offered under the bill here.  There are some implications for a small handful of councils, knowing that we still have 23 councils going through the approval process for their LPSs.  That is certainly up for consideration but it is potentially a two-month delay.  There are things to weigh up there.

The second part that is time sensitive – and it was identified by the minister – is that switch that is in the bill which says that DAs will be assessed from the time they are submitted and will be dealt with under the arrangements at the time they are submitted rather than the time of the decision.  That switch does have an impact for people who are putting in DAs. 

We just had a three-month delay because of an election being called.  It must be quite frustrating to have it put forward that there could be another couple of months delay.  Then again, if we did just want to get those two-time sensitive things done we probably could have had a bill that just did those two things.  It may have been easier to deal with because there are quite a lot of other things in this bill too which apparently are not time sensitive.  Therefore, it would not matter for those things, I am imagining, if we had this short delay.

I realise members will have their own views on balancing the value of what will be delivered to us through that short inquiry process which Government Administration A could contemplate if the motion was supported versus the detriment that people might judge there to be in doing so.  I am in support of the motion.  I believe we should utilise the committee arrangements we have for when bills come to this place that have some complexity, that have a high level of public interest and are on matters that might be sensitive in terms of public interest.

Planning is often one of those areas.  I like the idea that we give added robustness to our treatment of this bill and give the community and various stakeholders extra confidence that we have done our job in contemplating it.  I am in support of the motion.

Meg Webb speech to the Bill

 Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Madam Deputy President, I know a lot of areas have been canvassed already and we did mention some things when we debated the motion put by the member for Hobart.  It helps cut through some of the matters.  I reiterate that I found the briefing pack useful and the consultation process furnished some useful things to be considered and resulted in some changes to this bill.

The one I particularly mentioned that I was pleased to see when I read the consultation report, was that the process of that consultation gave rise to changes being made in reasons having to be published, board decisions, and things being made more transparent in that way.  It was excellent that those who participated in the consultation were able to call for that clearly and that was responded to.  That is particularly the case in instances where the minister may not have taken the advice provided by the TPC, for example. Having to provide reasons for that decision into the public domain is particularly appropriate and useful to now have in the bill.  Thank you to those who made the decisions about including those elements of transparency.

There were still some concerns that remained from various groups and we have heard some others give voice to those concerns.  I will not go through them exhaustively.  I will mention a few things, because they are matters I may have questions on as we go through the committee stage.  I will flag them now because some of them may be able to be dealt with ahead of committee stage or we may follow up at that time.

I refer to the clause of the bill that deals with minor amendments of SPPs, and in particular clause 8, subclause 30NA.  Those minor amendments in that section have been grouped fairly helpfully into some levels of ‘minor’.  The most straightforward minor amendment, such as typos and numerical fixes, have been designated as matters that are not of high consequence and therefore the minister does not have to seek advice about them – and that makes sense.  Then there is a category in the list there of various things that the minister must seek advice on.

The minister still has the discretion to take that advice or not.  It is good to see some of those matters, although they are here under the heading of minor, have been recognised as perhaps being of more consequence and therefore requiring advice to be sought by the minister.  I think it is a positive way to indicate the potential greater consequence there.  That makes sense to me and I think it is useful.

It does though beg the question, if they have been determined to be minor and then it has been determined though, that the minister must seek advice on them, clearly there are some things that can be of consequence in relation to them.  I am wondering about the parameters of some of those.

I do know that when we are talking about matters to do with planning it can occur at times that the possible impact of something can be minimised somewhat in presenting it to us for consideration.  The lightest touch of the impact of those matters might be presented as the most likely thing that could occur and that may be so.  Then things also can have possible greater consequences and it can be easy to skate across the top of those.

I am always interested to understand not just what might be the most likely impacts and consequence that may be deemed minor but also what could be the greater impact and consequence or the more consequential example.  That might be an area of focus for questions during the committee stage in the list about minor amendments to the SPPs.

Regarding interim amendments to SPPs made at the minister’s instigation, which can happen even in the case I believe of the TPC providing advice that a draft amendment should not be made on an interim basis in that matter.  It says that those can be made when the minister is satisfied that the situation is urgent, critical, and significant when it is in the public interest.  I am interested to explore more around the parameters of that.

Some external stakeholders have raised the fact that there is potential greater consequence that can be captured in these spaces so I am interested in whether we do have the right checks and balances around ministerial discretion.

I am particularly interested because of that public safety aspect described there.  Some particular examples are given around bushfire management or housing related matters but clearly in the bill it is not limited to just these.  So, there is some broader potential consequence or options that may not be visible to us immediately that could come about.

One of the things that was a matter of some confusion and needed to be really teased out across the two briefings we had from the department and the briefings from other stakeholders like PMAT and also the minister – and it did take some back and forth to get clarity – is about that change of process when it comes to substantial modifications to draft local provision schedules.

It is an interesting one because I understand the argument that an LPS having been considered and largely found to be approved and appropriate at the present time is being held up if there is something within it that has been deemed to be requiring substantial modification.  That then needs to go through its own process and therefore the whole lot potentially is being held up for six to seven months we have been informed.

I understand the rationale that this bill is allowing for the LPS to go ahead once it has been approved almost whole with the part that has been designated as being substantial modification in place to be then amended subsequently.  In the interim while that amendment process plays out, which would involve the public consultation elements and those matters, the direction for the substantial modification from the TPC stands as the rules on that thing even though it has not been publicly consulted on yet.  Matters relating to it would have been consulted on when the draft LPSs were considered in their whole.  However, the direction that came from the TPC about a need for the substantial modification that has not as yet been consulted on and yet it stands as a rule for a period of time while the amendment process plays out.

Now that is an interesting thing for us to contemplate, balance out and think about:  is this appropriate, what are the risks and benefits?  There is a potential benefit to that because it can put in place arrangements that many people might deem to be protective of an area that is not currently in place at an earlier time.  I understand that to be a potential way this might play out by many and perhaps those who have raised concerns and also seen to be a positive, that at the earlier opportunity we put in place protective things that the TPC has deemed should be appropriately put in as a substantial modification to that LPS.  The public consultation then plays out, the amendment plays out and then it is officially put in place if it is passed.  So, there could be earlier protection.

The other side of that is there could be an arrangement put in place where the substantial modification directed by the TPC becomes the rules while an amendment is considered for it to be officially put in place.  Approvals and things might be decided under that which, once the amendment process plays out with its full public consultation, actually results in changes or finding that it was not appropriate.  Things may have been decided or put in place or put in train that then were seen not to be the way forward, of concern to people and not what the public ultimately made representations on.

This could work either way.  What it comes back to when we are considering to support it or not, whether it is a valid thing to be putting in place at this time, whether it is necessary to make a change from the way it is now.  From my assessment, it comes back to having a fairly substantial measure of faith and confidence in the assessment and the decision-making of the TPC.  Ultimately, whether that does go into a positive or potentially a damaging outcome will rest on those measures the TPC has made about the substantial modifications, the direction they have made which become rules for a period of time without having been consulted on publicly.  We are putting our faith that that will more likely go in a good direction than a bad one.

That is a very wordy way of trying to break that down but I wanted try to put the process on the public record that we had to consider as we worked our way through these briefings and came to understand what this change in the bill would mean.  I still feel concerned about it.  I am concerned that something becomes the rule before it has been consulted on publicly, with people able to put forward their thoughts and have them heard in the decision-making process about the value of that.  I recognise that in some sense it has been covered by an earlier consultation but not in its entirety, so I still have concerns about that. 

When it comes to planning I suspect generally I will always err on side of wanting to see the public as involved and able to have a say as possible and for any process to have administrative justice and also be as transparent and accountable as possible.

Mr Valentine – We have to live with the results.

Ms WEBB – Indeed.  I suspect this bill is going to go through so this is what we are going to have to work with.  I will put it on the public record that what we are relying on here is the TPC to have made those decisions and directions about substantial modifications in a way that results in positive outcomes and reduces the risk of negative outcomes for the community.

That might be all.  There will be some questions I may have that come up through the committee stage.  I thank other members for going through some of those other concerns that have been raised and I want to acknowledge that there is still concern about this.  It would have been my preference for this to be looked at by a committee because it warrants it.  The delay that it may have caused is warranted and would have been a valuable delay.  Because we are the last cab on the rank as something comes through with something initiated as policy by the Government and it goes through its processes to be developed, ultimately eventually comes to parliament, goes through the other place and we are the last station for the train.  What that means is when it is a matter of taking some extra time and consideration at that last station at this point in the process, it can look like unreasonable or unacceptable delay.  Suddenly, the urgency that may have been there or have cropped up because other elements of that process have taken an extended or unnecessary or unreasonable amount of time, we are the ones who then wear the pressure of this.

That is a shame because at this point of the process, this final station for the train in its travels, is an important one and we should never shy away or feel the need to excuse the need for us to have time to do our job appropriately.  To take the opportunities we have created in our processes, like our Committee A and Committee B opportunities to review or inquire or provide extra scrutiny.  We should never have to feel we should put those aside.  We are as valid a point in the process as any of those other points along the way, from the time of conceding in a policy through to it becoming a law.

I would encourage members here to always remember that it is our role.  We are as entitled to do our role well as everybody else who has been involved in the process prior to it arriving here.  I would encourage the Government and any government of the day bringing matters to us to also respect and remember that is our role.  Just because we are the last station on the journey does not mean we have to bear the pressure and feel we have to rush or not do our job to the extent it deserves.

With that I will conclude my contribution.

See more legislation speeches by Meg Webb