Urgent Action for our coast – help support The Canal Estates Bill 2011

After 7 years, a rigorous and expensive taxpayer funded assessment that also cost the developer on the order of one million dollars, and a community campaign that cost everyday Tasmanians well over $100,000 in pocket money, there is no longer any doubt – artificial canal estate developments lead to serious adverse environmental and economic impacts.

This was the basis for the rejection of the Walker plan to develop Ralphs Bay – that the proposal was “inherently unsustainable” and was inconsistent with the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System and the State Coastal Policy.

It’s time that Tasmania caught up with mainland states like Victoria and NSW, where canal estates are already banned. It’s time that Tasmania had uniform guidance for developers – following the lead of the Kingborough municipality where canal estate developments have been prohibited since 2000. Never again should the taxpayer, the community, and a developer have to wear such a cost to simply rediscover what we already know – canal estate development is not appropriate in Tasmania.

We now have an historic opportunity – The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 – tabled in Parliament by the Tasmanian Government in March and due for debate at any time.

What you can do:

(1) Download a short document that puts the Bill and related facts in plain language.

The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011
JOINT BRIEFING DOCUMENT FROM SAVE RALPHS BAY, EDO TASMANIA, ENVIRONMENT TASMANIA, AND BIRDS TASMANIA

Download (200 kb PDF) —> http://bit.ly/2011_canal_estate_bill_tasmania

(2) Contact all Members of the Legislative Council (MLC’s), urging them to support the canal estate ban.

You can phone, text, email, fax or write to the MLC’s. For full contact details for the 14 MLC’s click here:

www.parliament.tas.gov.au/lc/lclists.pdf. (one seat in the Council is currently vacant)

Of particular importance in the Legislative Council are all the Independents (Party = Ind.) and Vanessa Goodwin (Party = LP).

(3) Contact all Members of the House of Assembly (MHA’s), urging them to support the canal estate ban.

You can phone, email, fax or write to the MHA’s. For full contact details click here: www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ha/halists.pdf.

Of particular importance in the House of Assembly are the 10 Liberal MHA’s in the Tasmanian Parliament (Party = LP)

(4) We can expect the Canal Estate (Prohibition) Bill to be debated in the Lower House this week – I’ll do my best to keep you posted on this. If you possibly can, please come to the public gallery on the day of the debate so that our representatives know you are listening carefully to every word they say on this historic opportunity to lock in key environmental protection, certainty, and cost savings for Tasmania.

For our bays, estuaries, and beaches,

Dr. Thomas Moore

Cassy O’Connor

LIBERALS NOT SUPPORTING CANAL ESTATE BAN BETRAYAL OF COASTLINE AND COMMUNITIES
Liberals Not Up to Scratch on Providing Stability in Industry or Safe Environmental Practices
Cassy O’Connor MP
Greens Environment and Coastal Protection spokesperson

The Tasmanian Greens today condemned the State Liberal party for today announcing they would vote against the recently tabled Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011, saying their decision is regressive, anti-environment and flies in the face of the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s damning rejection of the Walker Corporation proposal for Ralphs Bay.

Greens Environment and Coastal Protection spokesperson Cassy O’Connor MP said the six and half year campaign to protect Ralphs Bay showed how passionate Tasmanians are about protecting their coastlines, yet the Liberals are prepared to abandon coastal communities to the mercy of unscrupulous developers.

Ms O’Connor also said the Bill would not only ensure no coastal community would ever again have to go through what the Ralphs Bay community did, it would also provide certainty to developers and send a clear message about the protection of coastal values in Tasmania.

“It is flabbergasting that the Liberals have once again ignored the community voice and the industry call for certainty. In their determination to play cheap politics with this issue, they are also demonstrating a failure to understand safe environmental policy,” Ms O’Connor said.

“Liberal Leader, Will Hodgman, said in 2005 that the Liberal party is pro-development, but not at any cost. If that were true, they would support this Bill, protect our pristine coastal environment, heed the community voice and provide certainty to developers.”

“The Tasmanian Greens have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Ralphs Bay community and fought a long campaign for a ban on canal estate developments in Tasmania. This Bill finally arriving in the Parliament is yet another tribute to co-operative government that the Liberals are bent on destabilising,” Ms O’Connor said.

Previous Liberal comment:

“By our nature we are a pro-development party but that does not mean development at any cost. This is about principle, and about a vision for Tasmania heading forward; asking if this sort of development proposed for Ralphs Bay is either appropriate for a bay that is crown land or representative of what we want in the future for our precious coastline. Simply, in this case, we don’t think it is”.. (Liberal Leader Will Hodgman, AAP Aug 31, 2005)

These sentiments were echoed by the late Sue Napier in the Parliament in November 2009, during the debate on the Greens’ canal estate ban Bill, when she said,
“Intuitively, I don’t think canal estates fit with Tasmania or its image. The Liberal party is in favour of development, but not at any cost.”

UPDATE Tuesday:

OPPOSITION TO CANAL ESTATE BAN IGNORES REALITY AND RISKS UNNECESSARY FUTURE COSTS TO STATE

Environment Tasmania expressed disbelief today that the State Liberal party has announced their opposition to the recently tabled Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011, preempting debate due in Parliament later this week. The Bill recognises that the development of artificial canal estates on the mainland has led to serious adverse environmental and economic impacts and aims to avoid
these consequences by providing clear guidance to developers.

“After 7 years, a rigorous and expensive taxpayer funded assessment that also cost the developer on the order of one million dollars, and a community campaign that cost everyday Tasmanians well over $100,000 in pocket money, there is no longer any doubt – artificial canal estate developments are inherently unsustainable” said Dr Thomas Moore, oceanographer, and Environment Tasmania’s Coasts Coordinator.

“Never again should the taxpayer, the community, and a developer have to wear such a cost to simply rediscover what we already know – canal estate development is simply not appropriate in Tasmania,” he continued, Victoria and NSW have already banned canal estates in recognition of their harmful impacts while the Tasmanian municipality of Kingborough has locally prohibited canal estate developments since 2000.

“One must ask opponents of this Bill that, if they can’t support planning guidance based on years of credible and compelling experience across Australia and our own costly State assessment aimed at an inappropriate style of housing subdivision built in the sea despite climate change hazards, then what is their vision for Tasmania, ” Dr Moore continued, “We now have an historic opportunity in The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 to lock in environmental and economic safeguards while providing certainty for developers, encouraging investment in more appropriate, sustainable projects. ” he concluded.

Canal Estate Ban Especially Relevant To Rumney
Greens Candidate Penelope Ann Urges The Upper House To Ban Canal Estates
Penelope Ann, Greens Candidate for the Legislative Council seat of Rumney

Penelope Ann, Greens candidate for Rumney in the upcoming Legislative Council election, urges the members of the Upper House to vote for the Tasmanian Canal Estate Ban.

“Tasmania has virtually unlimited opportunities for homeowners to purchase or build waterfront homes.”

“All around Australia and internationally, governments have banned or are contemplating banning canal estate developments. Our closest neighbours Victoria banned Canal Estates in 2008.”

“The extreme weather events and flooding witnessed this year across most of mainland Australia and Northern Tasmania emphasise how foolish it would be to allow development to be undertaken right alongside river or coastal water. Indeed, planning bodies need to focus on developing guidelines that factor in the potential for future water surges, flooding or tsunamis.”

“If government allows canal estates in full knowledge of possible future disasters, then, I believe that they set themselves up for huge financial payouts from future litigation. In the event of a major flood, owners of canal estate homes would want to sue Local and State Governments. They would have understandably assumed that these properties were safe…otherwise, why would the government have allowed them?”

“By voting for the ban on canal estates this government will ensure that potential developers invest in sustainable projects that can succeed. This will make Tasmania a more desirable state for investment and save future home owners the sort of heartache that was witnessed across so much of Australia this year.”

“I find it interesting that Tony Mulder who is running against me for the seat of Rumney made a comment in october 2009 stating that he was against Canal Estate developments, but in 2010 voted against a local government motion to support a ban on Canal Estates. I think voters deserve to know where Tony stands on this issue in 2011.”