Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I always take this position, Madam President, when I have a long speech to make. I do not necessarily subscribe to all the issues put forward by the member for Elwick; some of the issues I do take on board but I do not necessarily agree with his whole summation of the position.

I can say right from the outset, that I will support the bill moving forward because I am not quite sure what would happen if the bill was not supported and the funding was lost or some of the funding was lost and I do not think I would like the comment of some of the public out there if that were the situation and I think I would have a lot of questions to answer.

Mrs Jamieson - You've got an election coming up.

Mr DEAN - There is a risk attached to it. I do not know just how great that risk is and I think that is probably the position for a number of us but there is a risk there.

Mr Finch - Especially for you and others who are up for election.

Mr DEAN - You are right. I did not say that but what I am saying is that there is very clearly a risk attached to it and we are told in very clear terms, are we not, that this package must be put into place, that these things must happen within a certain time frame and if those things do not happen within that certain time frame there are sanctions. Some of those sanctions, I find quite strange and quite unusual. One of the sanctions is that if you do not comply and do not do it all, we are going to tell everybody about it. If you look at the sanctions it is quite unbelievable. It is quite infantile in some respects.

The question I asked myself, is before this stimulus package was identified, a lot of these changes, these modifications, renovations that we are now hearing about within these schools were probably never thought of or they were probably on wish lists.

Mr Finch - Not on the radar.

Mr DEAN - Not on the radar but on wish lists and some probably were not even on the wish list, as the member for Rosevears said, and have now come forward as a result of this money being made available. I do take on board the comment I think made by one of the members as to what will be the value in some of these projects that will occur.

Students will certainly receive the benefits of it in many instances and very clearly the social housing is one that is needed and we know what the problems are in that area - that there are many people out there who do not have homes and currently are living in some fairly ordinary conditions. I can give many examples of that, having recently traipsed around some of the areas in my electorate where people are pleading and calling out for reasonable housing. In that regard I think that this is very good.

I wish to refer to some situations. The member for Western Tiers mentioned that this matter was bought on very quickly. That is true. In fact it was brought on so quickly that when you contact some of the planning divisions of local government you find that they have not even heard of this bill. Some of the planning areas that are responsible for the approval of these processes do not even know of the bill - they have not read the bill or even looked at it. That to me is concerning. In fact I am aware that a number of councillors in a number of councils do not know about it either.

Mr Hall - As I understand it, there are some councils in the north that are only starting to discuss it.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. As we speak here tonight they are just starting to discuss it and starting to get to know about it. That concerns me because I think that there will be some concern held by those people when they get to know more about it. I think that there will be some grizzles and some comments made in relation to certain aspects of it.

Ms Forrest - In the briefing we were informed that LGAT and the Premier's Local Government Council were informed and engaged. Is it not their responsibility to feed that back?

Mr DEAN - This is only a few days ago - Friday week ago. A lot of councils have not met since then. Some councils meet monthly and some fortnightly, but the process has to get out there.

Ms Forrest - For something as important as that wouldn't you be able to notify their -

Mr DEAN - That PLGC meeting, I understand, took place Friday week ago. That is the information that I was given. It might not be absolutely accurate but that is what I was told. So it has been brought forward at very short notice and that concerns me.

Mr Parkinson - It is one of the problems that things do move slowly at local government level. I have made the point before.


Mr DEAN - Madam President, I want to talk a little about planning and the LUPA act and the position that is now going to be eroded through this process. We all know that planning approval is required if a person proposes to make any changes to any development or if they propose or undertake a new development then they are required to make an application to the relevant local councils. That is the current process. All of these proposals are assessed against the relevant planning scheme provisions to determine the type of application, if any, that is required. If a permit is required, the council will determine which category that fits into. It is the requirement of the council to determine whether it is in a permitted category, a discretionary category or a prohibited category.

If it fits into a permitted category then the process is normally handled fairly quickly by the staff within council. It is signed off and delivered reasonably quickly. I think that the time frame within which these matters must be disposed of is 42 days. They must concluded within a certain period of time.

Ms Thorp - The clock can stop.

Mr DEAN - The clock can stop for certain circumstances. The applicant can apply for a further period of time. There are certain other things that can apply, you are right. If it is discretionary, then the matter comes back before the full council for that full council to make a determination. That is where things become fairly difficult. I want to be assured that the process we are going to go through now will have some of these checks and balances in it, because if it is a discretionary project then there is a lot of work to be done in relation to that. What happens is that the planning staff, first of all, do a full investigation of it and they look at every aspect of it. What they then do is they go to the aldermen or to the councils and put a position to the councillors. They then normally do a site visit. They go out and check the area where this development is to take place. They check it against the planning schemes. They check it against all of the other requirements and building permits et cetera to ensure that it can be built with some changes being made here and there and so on.

They also meet with any persons who become representors in that process. So if somebody is appealing against it or is not happy with it, then those persons are met with to work through a process. Then, with the Launceston City Council, there is a bringing together of the representors and the proponent. They bring them together to discuss the issues to see whether or not they can come to some common ground in relation to those developments.

Then, after all of this and that is a fairly drawn out process, but it all must happen within 42 days, it then comes into a council meeting, as you would be aware, Madam President, and the aldermen or the councillors around the table make a decision on whether or not it should be approved, not approved or approved with alterations or changes or whatever. So it is a long drawn-out process involving a lot of work.

As I understand it, in this process that we are currently going through here, we cannot be assured that those same checks and balances will be there. That is the reason why I asked in the briefing process, what are the liabilities, where does the risk lie after 2012, after the conclusion of these developments and after the withdrawing of this bill or the rescinding of this bill or whatever happens to it. Who picks up that liability? Who picks up that risk?

I would ask the Leader, in any response, to cover that for us.

Ms Thorp - All these buildings will still need certificates of compliance and sign offs on wiring and plumbing.

Mr DEAN - Yes, they may need all of that. But still, somebody, at the end of the day, has to pick up. In a council process, the councils have certain liabilities that rest with them and therefore we need to know where we stand in this situation.

I also want to comment on the briefings that we were given. I was very pleased to have received those briefings and that really has cut probably about an hour-and-a-half off my speech.

Ms Thorp - For that we should be grateful.

Mr Wilkinson - This time of night I appreciate it.

Mr DEAN - The member for Elwick raised issues of what could happen and what might happen with this process if it was supported, gyms being build over car parks and different other things. I do not think that is ever likely to happen. We have to live with these developments and I am confident that these developments will be good and I think that we need to accept that. We can put up all of these issues and things that could happen and might happen et cetera. But is it likely to happen? I do not think so.

Ms Thorp - Let us face it, the State Government does not want all these problems coming back to hit it in the face either.

Mr DEAN - You are absolutely right. It is the last thing I think that they would want in the circumstances. So I cannot really buy into that one at all. I really do not accept that too much.

The PLGC did have a meeting and they were contacted and they were consulted and I have spoken to the general manger of the Launceston City Council with respect to this matter. He participated in that meeting. It was indicated to me that it was Friday week ago. He was involved in that process by phone. It was made very clear - and we know in the act it relates only to schools and social housing issues - but from my point of view, I am sorry, it does not relate to police stations and some other buildings.

Mr Aird - We are building those anyhow.

Mr DEAN - They are building some, and they are adding to them, but there are a lot of police stations out there that are left wanting in regard to contemporary facilities. It would have been good if it had been able to proceed further than just housing and schools.

It was made clear at that meeting also, as I understand it, that it would be very difficult to get these projects up with the current system - that is, using the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act - and that is the reason they are going down this track. They needed a process to fast track, and that does concern me when we use the word 'fast-track' because we have been burned somewhat in relation to previous legislation that has been fast-tracked. That always causes some concern with me now and I think it does with most other members in this Chamber.

We were told during the briefing, and they were told at this PLGC meeting, that all other States are going down a somewhat similar track. It is not necessarily the same, but they are all putting in place some form of legislation to ensure that they can comply with the requirements of the Federal Government and the Prime Minister. If they are all going down that track, I think for us not to make some changes would put us in a rather precarious position, hence the reason we are doing what we are doing. Also at that meeting they were told of the grandfather clause, which expires on 31 December 2012. There was a lot of other discussion during that process which is considered confidential and I am unable to refer to it. There is a reference made through this process of where councils will be consulted and comment was made during that process as to what consultation will occur with local government. What will that entail? What will it be? How much consultation will occur with local government? What say in it will they have? What has been suggested by members attending that meeting is that any consultation needs to be genuine consultation and it needs to be meaningful communication and consultation. As I said, there were concerns identified as to how much consultation will occur.

I want to refer to a comment made by the general manager of the George Town Council, who is still in situ at this very moment; I think she concludes her position very shortly. I want to quote from an e-mail message that I have received from the George Town Council. It starts with 'We do have concerns re. this' - meaning this bill that we are currently discussing - and I quote:

'primarily in relation to public housing as opposed to schools, although I do know that there is significant potential for a school development to go across a property boundary and also over a sewer main because no-one bothered to check these details'.

So these are some of the issues that are being brought forward by local government. In the bypassing of the LUPA act these things are clearly challenged. But one would hope that they are clearly checked out and that none of that sort of thing happens. If it does occur, it creates immense problems for local government moving forward if buildings, developments, occur over sewers and drains et cetera.

Mr Parkinson - That is not going to happen. The plumbers are still involved in the process.

Mr DEAN - It is interesting you should say that, Mr Leader, because I can give you many examples of where plumbers have been involved and that thing has happened, and has happened on many occasions - where there has not been a proper process gone through.

Ms Thorp - Even under the existing planning scheme?

Mr DEAN - Yes, under the existing planning scheme. Quite a number of examples of where buildings have been planned to go over the top of sewers and drains because there has been a failure to work with the councils to identify very clearly where these mains are situated on certain blocks. So it is an issue. I go on. I quote:

'So who is going to actually consider the impacts on the area? In George Town Housing Tas has a lot of property in one area of town only and that area is already the lower socioeconomic quarter of town with associated problems. Who is going to ensure good planning? - consideration of neighbourhood, setbacks, public open spaces, services, roads … Whilst some form of truncated process may not be bad someone still needs to ensure that development is compatible with the area and with the current infrastructure and future development of the area.'

I raised some of those issues during the briefing today. We need to be assured that any social housing that occurs is properly planned and it takes into consideration all of those issues, Madam President. Therefore, there is a need for that consultation process with local government to be real, and for it to be genuine consultation. Having said that, Madam President, I do not intend to go over the issues that others have referred to. At this stage, unless there is a persuasive speaker coming forward, I certainly will be supporting the bill.