Projects Bill war of words

Political Editor

DAVID KILLICK

THE Gutwein government’s controversial major projects Bill was expected to pass the Lower House of state parliament during a late-night sitting on Wednesday.

Debate on the Bill stretched into the evening as opposition members moved and debated amendments.

The Bill was expected to pass with the support of Labor and despite the opposition of the two Green members of the 25-member House.

It will then be considered by the Legislative Council.

The Bill will replace old Projects of Regional Significance rules, which have never been used, and will apply to projects which are high value or complex.

It takes decisions out of the hands of local councils and puts them in the hands of Independent Development Assessment Panels appointed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Environmentalists on Wednesday accused the state’s peak tourism body of duplicity over the laws.

In return, Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania chief Luke Martin says the Wilderness Society was now defending the existing planning system which it has derided and challenged in court.

Mr Martin commented on Twitter this week he did not understand why people were concerned the proposed major projects laws could be applied to the tourism development proposed for Halls Island in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

“A) it’s not a major project, and b) it’s been through the planning system. It’s irrelevant to the debate,” he said.

But the TICT’s submission on the Bill welcomes its application to projects in protected areas. “We see the potential for this major projects process to be triggered for complex development proposals within Tasmania’s protected areas, instilling experts into the decision making … this can only be a good thing.”

Tom Allen from the Wilderness Society said he believed the tourism industry was sending a mixed message.

“The TICT submission validates our worst fears that this legislation will be used to fasttrack private commercial developments in Tasmania’s public nation parks,” he said.

“While publicly suggesting that we were scaremongering, behind the scenes, the TICT was advocating for exactly what the Wilderness Society was warning could happen to national parks.”

Mr Martin said his comments referred to projects which were beyond the expertise and resources of local councils to deal with in a timely and efficient fashion.