Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Draft Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Major Projects) Bill 2020 will create a new process whereby any development which meets the criteria of being considered as a major project is assessed by an independent expert panel.
Public consultation on the legislation has closed with feedback currently informing the final bill.
Reporter Emily Jarvie sat down with Planning Minister Roger Jaensch to discuss the bill.
EJ: A concern about this bill is that it will provide a short-cut for controversial projects to be approved - what safeguards are in place to prevent this?
RJ: This isn't a way of bypassing any regulations or laws - it's just a way of lining them up more efficiently for projects that have to go through a lot of hoops.
There are lots of safeguards and lots of opportunities for the public to see into the process and have their say.
There's been a bit of fear-mongering not about what the bill is but what the bill could be out in the community.
The whole 'government being able to grab any project at any time and bypass the planning system and make any controversial projects come to life [narrative]' is all wrong.
I'm not trying to sell this to the Tasmanian people, but I think if they looked [at the bill] they would see the things people have written about being fearful of aren't real.
My question would be, as a Tasmanian citizen, why wouldn't you want there to be an independent expert panel assessing those projects against the relevant planning rules?
EJ: It's been suggested the bill would circumvent current planning processes for developments in national parks and reserves - is this the case?
RJ: It would still need to go through all of the processes that exist there now.
EJ: You've spoken previously about how this process will help with Tasmania's COVID-19 recovery - how?
RJ: This isn't about any particular project - it's about the state being seen to have the right tools in place to deal with projects that might be able to go elsewhere.
If over the next couple of years there are significant investments to happen in, for example, renewable energy that are projects which could also go to South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria or New Zealand - we want to attract that investment here.
If we can show that we've got a sound and robust planning system that can provide clarity and certainty, we aren't guaranteeing them and outcome but we are showing them we have the pathway rather than their investment being a gamble.
That's important because everybody is going to be competing for investment that creates jobs, particularly over the next few years, because everybody is going to need to recover from this.
EJ: Given the projects of Regional Significant Process was never used, how often do you expect this new process to be utilised?
RJ: It's there when it's needed. The Bridgewater Bridge is one example. I would expect that with our Battery of the Nation proposal we are going to have some renewable energy projects that might be the sorts of projects we could deal with using this process. Another one might be if we had something like a hydrogen renewable energy plant.
As to how many, we don't have a list of them all. But what we do know is when we have a major project arise we don't have the right tools for it.
EJ: How can councils have their say on a project under the new process?
RJ: They can nominate a project to go into the process. They are consulted on whether it should be major project and whether it meets the criteria. They will also be consulted at various stages in the process. They have a member on the panel itself. They can make submissions later down the track on behalf of their community as well.
It's quite a strong involvement the councils can still have.
Related stories:
Far from cutting them out, as has been suggested, it gives them a greater opportunity to advocate for their local communities' interests rather than being the decision-maker bound by the rules of their planning scheme.
Maybe the best role for them is to represent their community in that process, rather than be the planning authority. When a council is working as a planning authority, they have to apply the rules of the planning scheme and that's sometimes a situation where councillors find themselves in conflict.
EJ: What role do you have in the process as Minister?
RJ: My involvement is in reviewing nominations from a proponent or a council, or my own office, about if a project should be considered through the Major Projects process.
Then I seek advice from the relevant councils that are affected, state government bodies and any regulators that might be involved and we assess it against a set of criteria. That will be generic criteria developed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.
If the project is deemed to be significant, complex, and of scale and importance to go through this process, I declare it to be a major project and I publish a statement of my reasons why. At that point my involvement stops entirely.
Some of the things we have been accused of, or that have been put out there, is that the government is too involved with this, the Minister makes the decision and it bypasses the community - nothing could be further from the truth.
We've gone to great lengths to get elected politicians out of the room. Developers don't want a nod and a wink from a politician to get something through. That could come unstuck for them quite quickly.
EJ: What qualifies someone as an expert to sit on the panel?
RJ: That will come down to the TPC to determine what the subject matter expertise is that they will need.
In other news:
EJ: Why can the panel both create the assessment guidelines for a project and assess the proponent's response to these guidelines?
RJ: The way it works is that the panel comes up with the guidelines with input from the various regulators such as TasWater. Then those guidelines are published and given to the project proponent then the proponent prepares a submission responding to the guidelines.
This is a little bit like a teacher setting a maths test, giving to the student, the student gives the answer back and then the teacher [the panel] assesses that.
There's a report done on that response which is published. The public can see how the project responds to the assessment guidelines.
EJ: Why can a decision of the panel only be appealed through the courts?
RJ: Elsewhere in the planning system where there is an appeals process the people who you would appeal to is very much like what the panel is - it's an independent expert group. On a legal principle, it would be hard to justify one independent expert panel judging an appeal on another independent expert panel's decision.
You don't keep shopping around until you get the answer you want, you have to take it to another level. The next level here is the courts.
EJ: How many submissions did you receive on the draft bill and are you expecting to make any significant changes to the legislation before it is tabled?
RJ: We received 213 from individuals, 32 template submissions with the Hobart not Highrise template, 108 on the Planning Matters Alliance template and around 1000 on the Tasmanian Conservation Trust template.
Quite a lot express a strong view about what they think the bill will do, not about specific aspects that they want changed. Some [people] just don't want it because they think it applies to projects they don't want to go ahead.
We will take those into account but our focus will be very much on those that are proposing some specific changes and are giving good reasons as to what those changes should be.
EJ: If the bill is debated in August and passes the Parliament, when will the process be put in place?
RJ: By the end of the year we'd hope to have the Major Projects process ready to roll.