We ask once again: So Bryan, who are the PAL winners?

How can you allow such an unconscionable set of circumstances involving people like the Bridges and many others, arise and then continue?

At the last sitting of the Legislative Council 24/5/2011 the following question was asked:

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

I (Mr Finch) tomorrow to ask the Honourable the Leader of the Government –

Can the Government confirm that it plans a one-off reprieve for residences that breach council and building laws, particularly homes that have been caught up in the Protection of Agricultural Land policy like that of Richard and Joan Bridge who face eviction from their Moorleah home south of Wynyard.

If there is to be a reprieve when will it happen?

Why is the Government taking so long to rectify this problem and end the anguish of people caught out by this PAL policy?

Answered by: The Hon. Doug Parkinson, MLC

Answer:
The former Minister for Planning tabled the Land Use Planning and Approvals (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2009 late in 2009 but was not debated before Parliament was prorogued.

The Bill introduced a new enforcement regime within the act.

I am advised that before bringing that Bill back to Parliament, the Minister is considering whether an amnesty period should be put in place to allow for illegal use and development to be brought into conformity with a planning scheme or with building health and environmental regulations.

The amnesty could be put in place for a period around 6-9 months to allow time to for planning and building documentation to be prepared and submitted to the relevant council. the enforcement legislation would be designed to come into effect after that period.

I should point out that any amnesty would not allow for the continued occupation of of a building that does not meet the minimum building, health, safety and environmental standards for a habitable dwelling or could not be made to meet those standards.

Before deciding on whether to proceed with an amnesty the Government needs to consult with local government on it’s exact extent and parameters and the Minister for Planning has asked the Tasmanian Planning Commission to seek feedback from local government on the proposal.

A consultation Paper has been sent out for comment which provides background to the proposal and councils have until 3 June 2011 to provide any comments to the commission.

The Commission has also sought comment from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hydro Tasmania and Forestry as managers of major land holdings.

It would not be appropriate to try to predict whether an individual case would or would not be covered by the amnesty, assuming it proceeds.

I would expect the relevant legislation to be considered by the parliament in the second half of this year.
End of the answer.

When you think just how simple it would be to redress the obvious problems caused to Richard and Joan Bridge, why all the inordinate delays?

This sorry saga is taking on all the attributes of an act of political bastardry. (bastardry – malicious or cruel behaviour)

I thought all this misnaming of the so called PAL policy and the hardship caused to approx 30,000 titleholders was just a mistake which could be easily rectified. How wrong can you be!

The introductory paragraph of a paper by Tom Baxter and Roland Brown called “Probity Issues Connected with the Tasmanian Pulp Mill” says:

Tasmania is a small place.While in many respects small is beautiful, the State suffers what one academic calls a ‘culture of cosiness’ whereby a concentrated corporatist culture drives incestuous deal-making characterised by conflicts of interest. In particular, Tasmania is afflicted by the ’resource curse’, through natural resource abundance appears inversely related to standards of governance.

I hope for all those people effected, the above is not applicable to the PAL policy.

And yet at the ABC forum in Burnie 4/5/2011 it became apparent that farmers were told to fend for themselves, yet Forestry seems to work under a different set of rules.

Adding forestry as an agricultural pursuit allowed them to move onto agricultural land at will, which means that the areas being used for plantations cannot be used for food production for up to 30 years.

So much for Tasmania becoming a food bowl!

So where does this leave the image of our Politicians in the community.

Quote: ‘Politicians vie with journalists and used car salesmen in the pits of public esteem’. nd a heading from the same article:’there is a widening gap between the representatives (politicians) and those they represent (the people).

That was written by someone with first hand experience, non other than David Bartlett.

To back up those statements there was a survey carried out in 2004 which placed Politicians last in ‘Australia’s most Trusted’. But by the 2010 survey there was a marked improvement! Our Politicians had gone up 3 rungs to 38 from 40. Still below Real estate agents and sex workers, but above car salesmen and telemarketers.

Why is it so? When if you take the example of PAL, to restore the common law rights to 30.000 land holders would not only restore some faith in our political representatives for not only seeming to uphold our democracy, but assist the building industry, restore the councils’ ability to adjust the way our rates are struck and enable a widening division in our community to be reversed.

This week’s amazing disclosure from the FOI files: Billy Connelly would love this one.

From: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Supplementary Budget Estimates October 2009
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Act of Grace payment to assist the company to meet tax liabilities on special compensation grants that they received from the Tasmanian Government to compensate them for the loss of logging areas reserved under the TCFA.

Seems passing strange that of the 100 entrees on that printout headed Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, all bar one were Grants for Forestry activities.

Certainly does make you wonder.