Scheme not cheaper or faster
PLANNING
WHILE Greg Barns’ critique of the Liberal Government’s planning changes is spot on (Talking Point, February 5), the assertion the Government’s Statewide Planning Scheme has been completed is incorrect. I have no real complaints on this point as it means there is some chance of it never seeing the light of day. It has certainly not been prepared in the time frame promised and notwithstanding a $100,000 taxpayer funded TV campaign appears to be many moons away yet. One can only guess why the development lobby is silent on this delay when at the last election it was the priority reform.
More problematic is the point on the State Planning Provisions which will do nothing to make the planning system faster, cheaper and more consistent. Until all of the discretionary development standards in the provisions are more clearly defined nothing is certain, cheaper or faster, with many discretionary developments going on to appeals, resulting in higher costs and further delays.
What are the chances of further legislation (subject to re-election) being brought into parliament to ram the scheme into law. That would also avoid the next stage of the process of sending the Statewide Planning scheme to the State Planning Commission. next attempted reserve grab for privatisation. Will a development application to Clarence City Council for the hill resemble the proposal of three years ago for a tourism development, over 100 hotel rooms, 250-seat restaurant, 300-seat conference centre, indoor swimming pool, and 160-space car park, capable of placing 700-plus people on a small nature reserve hilltop at any one time? The huge scale in a suburban area with narrow streets is inappropriate, for reasons including traffic, loss of control of land, privatisation setting a precedent for other green hilltops around Hobart, and removal of threatened flora and large swathes of bushland for a bushfire zone. Building may require extensive blasting through Jurassic dolerite bedrock.
Clarence council may be bold enough to deliver a low impact low profile development on the hillside, similar to that at Mt Nelson, which their mayor publicly supported three years ago. While Rosny Hill is one example, all Tasmanians are urged to speak to aspiring parliamentarians before March 3 to learn of each party’s planning policies and their implications.
Extreme changes
THE Draft Major Projects Legislation is even more extreme than Greg Barns says (Talking Point, February 5). As he says, proponents who make an application to the minister for their project to be declared a major project only have to meet two out of a long list of very broad criteria. It is also proposed that the minister have new powers to call-in a development, that is, take it out of an existing council assess- A new way to have your say themercury.com.au readers have a new way to have their say. It’s free to use, just register and have your say. For more details and to register, visit the website. ment process. These projects do not have to meet any criteria, so any development could be called-in by the minister. The legislation says a project may be called-in simply because the minister is of the opinion that a council has “unreasonably delayed” the assessment of a project. “Unreasonably” is not defined. The Government has proposed amendments that the minister must ask the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s view of whether an assessment has been unreasonably delayed but the minister is not bound to follow its advice.
The minister also has the power to determine that a development may be beyond a council’s “capacity or capability” to assess in a timely manner. These changes are a serious threat to our democratic rights to have a say over developments and the Liberal Government has not been open about the extreme nature of the changes proposed.
We need transparency
GREG Barns is correct when he highlights the unacceptable executive power around “regulatory capture” in our new Statewide Planning Scheme. This is just another example of our continually failing system of capitalism, where we are supposed to accept smoke and mirror rhetoric from vested interests.
We urgently need a more accountable democratic system, where all parties are legally responsible, transparent and answerable to the people generally.
Careful who you vote for
YOUR editorial ( Mercury, February 6) expressed very clearly the result of the coming state election. The Premier or Opposition Leader may need help to form a minority government. Traditionally the Greens combine with Labor to form government. Evidence: state, national and New Zealand as prime examples. If you vote Green you will be voting for a Labor-Green minority government.
Inclusion Day
NOT Australia Day, not Invasion Day. Just ... Inclusion Day, on the third Monday of January. No more jingoism. No more gaudy plastic flags and other polluting items made in other countries. Respect and inclusion for Aborigines and for all immigrants and their descendants. January is the best time for a long weekend. Celebrate the holiday with your family and friends — and include other citizens and visitors.
Fewer broken promises
THERE has been considerable comment about the leader of the Labor Party’s lack of parliamentary experience. This has been advanced as a weakness, one that undermines her ability to lead her party successfully. However, it could also be construed as a strength in that she has had, compared to the records of more seasoned politicians, less experience in breaking election promises.
No junk please
Could all candidates for the upcoming state election please remember that some electors have “No junk mail” stickers attached to our letter boxes. Please respect this and stop placing your junk in these boxes.