Media release – PMAT and TCT, 21 November 2024
Proposed Development Assessment Panel legislation opposed by community, Local Governments and Tasmanian Planning Commission – parliament needs to vote down the DAP legislation
Local Government Association of Tasmania votes against DAPs
At today’s meeting of the Local Government Association of Tasmania all 29 local governments voted in support of a motion that “Local Government rejects the DAP legislation in its current form”.
The full motion was
That LGAT:
informs the State government that Local Government rejects the DAP legislation in its current form.
The Local Government sector is extremely disappointed by the governments approach to the consultation on this Bill.
Remains open to professional consultation and collaboration with the parliament
Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania (PMAT) and Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT) welcome the LGAT’s unanimous decision and acknowledge the many shared concerns about the controversial DAP legislation.
Lower House of State Parliament suspends standing orders to hasten DAPs debate
At the same time as Local Government were debating their motion the Lower House of the state parliament voted to suspend standing orders to enable the government to bring on debate on the DAP legislation today, reducing the time members of parliament have to consider it.
The PMAT and TCT condemn the Liberal and Labor parties for wanting to rush the debate and avoid full scrutiny of this controversial legislation before the Local Government sector had voted on it.
The PMAT State Director, Sophie Underwood stated that: “Communities across Tasmania have been badly let down by Labor and Liberal parties wanting to rush the parliamentary debate and avoid full scrutiny of the controversial DAP legislation. With all 29 Local Governments stating their opposition to the DAPs legislation the Labor and Liberal Parties should now vote against the DAPs”.
The TCT CEO Peter McGlone stated that: “It seems like the state government doesn’t care about how impractical and unpopular its DAPs legislation is, it just wants a big political fight, and now they have one with all 29 Local Governments opposing DAPs.”
Public submissions
The PMAT reviewed all the submissions because the state government had failed to do so. Out of 482 submissions received on the Draft DAP legislation 444 submissions (92%) were opposed to the creation of DAPs.
PMAT State Director Sophie Underwood stated that “It is greatly concerning that the state government tabled the final bill in parliament only five business days after receiving these submissions. The government ignored almost all recommendations made in the submissions”.
Submissions by Local Government
The TCT reviewed all the submissions made by Local Governments on the Draft DAP legislation. Out of 18 submissions received 14 Local Governments stated opposition or were leaning toward opposition to the DAP bill. One council supported the bill and three did not indicate a clear position.
TCT CEO Peter McGlone stated that “Today’s LGAT decision should be no surprise to the state government after it received overwhelming opposition through the submission process”.
Tasmanian Planning Commission voices concerns about DAPs legislation
In a move that may be unprecedented the Tasmanian Planning Commission (submission number 343) made a strong submission on the Draft DAP legislation, pointing out a long list of concerns and making numerous recommendations for amendments.
Having reviewed the Tasmanian Planning Commission submission and confirmed that the tabled legislation has not been amended to address their concerns, TCT CEO Peter McGlone stated that: “The Tasmanian Planning Commission submission points out how totally unworkable the DAP legislation will be, an incredible statement because the Planning Commission will be responsible for administering the DAPs”.
Key concerns and suggested amendments by the Tasmanian Planning Commission:
– Planning scheme amendments: the Planning Commission recommended a major amendment so that councils and not the DAPs assess proposals for planning scheme amendments and that DAPs would only make the final determination.
– Heritage: the Planning Commission raises concerns that places on Tasmanian Heritage register are at “very high risk being used or developed inappropriately” and that “the Heritage Act does not apply” to DAP assessments.
–DAP members not protected from liability: The Planning Commission says they are concerned that the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997 would not apply to DAPs the same way they apply to panels delegated under s.8 of the Commission Act and that “DAP members are not protected from immunity and liability as afforded to Commission delegates under s.13 and s.14 Commission Act”. They make recommendations for amendment to the Draft DAP bill and suggest changes to the Commission Act.
– Insufficient staff in TPC: Concerns that the TPC won’t have sufficient staff with appropriate skills and recommends that the commencement date is delayed to ensure the Commission is prepared.
– Valuation of proposed developments: Not clear who calculates the value of a development and concerned that the Commission could be challenged on valuation and asks, “would it invalidate the process?”. Recommends regulations to establish thresholds subject to annual indexation. Also suggests “Evidence of the costs of works should be provided by a suitably qualified person such as a quantity surveyor”.
– Key terms not defined: Concerned about language used e.g. ‘significant’, ‘controversial’, ‘conflict of interest’ and says “not clear how the Minister may interpret this”. Recommends amendments so that the Ministers have guidelines or criteria.
– Expanded role for planning authorities: Suggest that “The planning authority should be given the opportunity to recommend that a permit not be granted…”.
Media release – Felix Ellis, Minister for Housing, Planning and Consumer Affairs, 21 November 2024
Swift action on Stony Rise
The Tasmanian Government’s legislation to secure the delivery of the Stony Rise development has passed the House of Assembly.
This legislation will allow the $40 million retail precinct to be developed in Devonport, delivering improved amenities and living for residents in Stony Rise.
Minister for Housing, Planning and Consumer Affairs, Felix Ellis, said this was a victory for common sense.
“Today was an important win not just for the Devonport community – but Tasmania as a whole,” Minister Ellis said.
“It is a signal to the business community that this Liberal Government is in your corner.
“This legislation will enable a much-needed development which now has the opportunity to become a cornerstone of the north west community.
Media release – Rosalie Woodruff MP, Greens Leader, 21 November 2024
Rockliff Refuses to Disclose Developer Donations Ahead of Dodgy Legislation
In an extraordinary display in Parliament, Premier Rockliff has refused to disclose if developer Tipalea is a Liberal Party donor. This is despite the Liberal Government ramming through legislation to override independent decisionmaker and approve Tipalea’s shopping centre development.
Why wouldn’t the Premier tell Tasmanians if Tipalea is a Liberal donor? They deserve to know if this is a quid pro quo.
Just a day after the Stony Rise developer took out a full-page ad demanding the Rockliff Government to help them bypass planning laws, the Liberals jumped to their aid.
While it’s hardly new for the Liberals to do favours for their mates and donors, this piece of legislation takes it to the next level – bypassing all planning laws and directly approving a development. This precedent is a recipe for corruption.
At every turn, the Liberals are facilitating inappropriate development and weakening planning laws, from major projects legislation and flawed stadium assessment process to Development Assessment Panels – and the Stony Rise approval bill.
Special treatment, sweet deals and facilitating legislation for their corporate mates is business as usual for the Liberals in government.
By the Premier refusing to answer a simple question about donations from Tipalea, it’s hard to believe there hasn’t been one.
This is clean cut recipe for corruption. It sends the strongest signal yet – the Rockliff Government is for sale to any would-be developer.
Today it’s Tipalea and a supermarket complex Which mate and project will be next?
Media release – Shane Broad MP, Shadow Minister for Planning, Shadow Minister for Building & Construction, 21 November 2024
Labor led, Liberals followed on Stony Rise
Legislation to secure the delivery of Stony Rise development has passed the House of Assembly.
It’s embarrassing that Premier Rockliff had to wait for Labor to act first before jumping on board.
Two months after the Premier promised to “immediately identify” a way to make sure the Stony Rise Village development could go ahead – he had done nothing.
24 hours before the Opposition Leader pledged Labor’s strong support for the development, the Premier was still giving wishy-washy statements to the media.
“We have also made it clear we will consider all avenues, including legislative changes – if necessary – as soon as practicable,” the Premier said.
Then, only hours after Dean Winter committed to support the project with legislation in Parliament, the Premier followed his lead.
The Premier’s inability to get the job done by himself is just another sign that he is struggling.
Media release – independent Member for Braddon, Miriam Beswick, 21 November 2024
STONY DEVELOPMENT WILL FINALLY RISE
Independent Member for Braddon, Miriam Beswick MP, has welcomed the passage of legislation to secure the $40 million retail precinct in Stony Rise, Devonport.
“This development will deliver improved amenities and a better quality of life for residents in Stony Rise,” Mrs Beswick said.
“The project is a step forward for the north west, creating jobs and boosting the local economy.
“This is a great outcome for Devonport and sends a message that the region is open for business.
“The Stony Rise precinct has the potential to become a key part of our community, providing essential services and a central hub for locals.
“My decision to support the legislation was based on what’s best for the community.
“It confounds me that it took emergency legislation to deliver this decision but at least we’re finally moving forward.”
