Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - Mr President, I really was not going to speak on this but there are just a few issues I want to raise, and I do thank Mr Ian Abernathy in doing so. He is the group manager of sustainability in the Launceston City Council and the person responsible for the planning area of that council who has looked at the report in some detail and has asked me to raise one or two issues here this morning, which I will do in point form.

Clearly, there are recommendations that will bring planning in Tasmania into line with the other States. I think that that is probably necessary and I guess if we look at other bills that are listed on our Notice Paper today, a number of those bills will bring us in line with what is happening in other States as well so we are moving down that track. There are others where the outcomes would have been questioned and I will raise some of those in a moment; however, as a paper giving some thought-provoking commentary on land use planning, the report must be seen as a positive document and, in my opinion, long overdue because there have been a lot of difficulties in the planning areas of councils for a long time and it does need fixing. There is no doubt about that. It does cause some concern. It creates concern for developers and it creates concerns for those people working in those areas.

Mr Hall - There has been no real review of the act since it was introduced in 1993.

Mr DEAN - That does not surprise me because, as I said, I have only been working closely with it now for the last four years and there is still a lot I need to learn about it, and I do not deny that at all. I think there are a lot of others who would need to know a lot more about it as well who work with it from day to day.
You mentioned a State planning department. A properly-resourced State planning department is certainly supported by the Launceston City Council. I spoke to the George Town Council on this issue but to this stage I have not received anything back from them. There would be few States that did not have such a department, as I understand, throughout Australia. Given the importance of land use planning to the future of Tasmanian life, this is seen as a very positive step. The Launceston City Council would very much like to see that move forward.

A template for planning schemes is another issue. This would give consistency across the State and make planning more predictable - and there is certainly a lot of unpredictability about it at the present time. It will also help councils by taking one more decision out of planning administration. The balance will be application of template without taking away local choices in terms of land use. I think a template there would certainly be a very positive move forward.

Clearly, written State policies is supported but it is suggested that this could be taken a step further by the inclusion of State policies in a State section of the municipal planning schemes. We are saying it should go one step further. Overlay of other land use impacting issues into planning schemes is supported but may be unnecessary if we aim for a State section in the municipal planning schemes. We need to get all of these issues right, in my view, in moving this matter forward. Impact statements are also supported. Again, each request for a planning scheme amendment should be accompanied by an impact statement. This has been a practice adopted by the Launceston City Council for a number of years, so it is not new to them. Planning impact statements can be simple or complex documents, depending on the issues being examined. That is seen as a positive move and, as I said, it has been used by the Launceston City Council now for some time. We support the review scheme every five years because I do not think that any act ought to be there forever and there ought to be sunset clauses with just about any legislation we deal with today. We find that outdated legislation from time to time does create concerns and difficulties. The Launceston City Council, and the George Town Council in that regard, certainly see that as a vital part of keeping planning schemes up to date.
Mr Hall - Yes, and of course linked to the council's strategic plan as well.

Mr DEAN - It is agreed that State agencies should play a greater role in planning schemes and this is supported provided local content of schemes is not lost and the relative agencies are properly resourced and directed to give timely responses to councils. We find that a difficulty with many of these sections that are set up. There is just not the funding or the right numbers of staff in those areas to do the work that is required of them. We find invariably these extra duties being placed upon existing organisations that are already struggling to do what they need to do.

A State department to be resourced to hold all planning scheme maps is supported provided it does not place an undue burden on councils to provide information. This is where councils do struggle with the ability to continually provide what is necessary into other organisations and State departments. They are not flush with resources, either financial resources and/or persons. So it does create concern for them. The shortage of planners is well known and that has been discussed on many occasions. It is creating huge difficulties and causing many local governments to fall behind in the work that they are required to do in these areas. I am not quite sure how long we will be working through this and bringing into these areas the extra planners that are necessary. But yes, good planners are poached. Yes, councils are now required to pay additional salaries to keep these people in their areas. You have to watch them like a hawk because you know that there is somebody looking around the corner to take on one of your planners. You get them, you train them, you make them very proficient in the things that they are doing and then they are gone. In the Launceston area there have been in very recent times about five senior planners, that I am aware of, who have left the organisation to go into private enterprise, where of course the dollars are much greater. That is unfortunate because it does create -

Mr Hall - It makes if difficult for the community too when there is a flow-through of planners and they have built up a knowledge base and then they are gone.

Mr DEAN - It does and it becomes frustrating for the staff who are left there to do the job that is required of them.

There is support for the idea of including regional plans in municipal planning schemes. Matters like retail industrial and high-level population projections are best handled at a regional level.

Mr Hall - Big-box developments?

Mr DEAN - Any regional planning processes should not impede local choices in terms of land use planning. You are absolutely, 100 per cent right, member for Rowallan, big-box developments, and I could, in fact, have a couple of questions for the Treasurer later on. But the session has not started off that well and I do not really want to anger him too much so I might leave those questions for the following week.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I will reassess that during the lunch break, Mr President, and I may ask those questions.
With regard to planning education for elected members, a short course in planning would be of assistance to elected members. Whilst this is an important issue, there are also many other topics and areas in local government that require elected members to be trained and to become more proficient and efficient in what they are doing. It is not denied that there needs to be a good standard of training for the elected members to work within the planning area. Councils deal with these things regularly, every fortnight within the Launceston Council and monthly, I guess, in all the other councils. You are right, you put the hat on to work as a planning group and you take that off then and deal with the other matters, just as a normal elected council, Mr President. It is a matter of trying to make that change and being able to address the issues that need to be addressed by you as an elected member when you are acting as a planning authority. It is not so easy because it requires a lot of training. There are a lot of things to know and to understand so it is an area where training is necessary. I am not quite sure how it will be done because, as the member for Rowallan has already mentioned, most elected members do have other work. They really are voluntary and the small allowance that they receive really does not cover their expenses. It is an issue and I am not quite sure what the answer is there.

I believe that the answer there, in fact, is in smaller councils and I believe that the answer is in fewer councils in the State and that all elected members ought to be salaried members. That is my very strong position and I think this is one way of getting through this.

Mr Hall - Was everybody listening when you said that?

Mr DEAN - I would hope that they were.

Mr Hall - You might need to run that past the Chamber again. Do you have a notice of motion coming up on that?

Mr DEAN - I have. In fact, that will come into the Chamber early next year.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Could you repeat that, please?

Mr DEAN - Mr President, for those members who did not hear, the motion in relation to the uniting of councils - I have forgotten the word; amalgamation - should come into this Chamber early next year, in the autumn session of next year, I would hope.

The chair to be a legal person and three persons to sit on all commissions is not really supported within the Launceston City Council area; the reliance on legal expertise would set up a court scenario, and I myself think it probably would, rather than dealing with the planning issues, the real issues. Three members seems a good idea but in the majority of cases three persons would be a total overkill. Keep the chairing and numbers flexible depending on issues being discussed. It is felt that if a legal person is the chair of that committee, then it would create unnecessary issues and bring a legal part to it. It is believed that it can be done better than that.

Mr Hall - We took some evidence that suggested that if a chair did not have some legal expertise, it is difficult for that person to counter some of the legal arguments being raised and that then prolonged the process. There were differing opinions on that.

Mr DEAN - It is an arguable matter but it is believed that we need to look very closely at how we do that at the end of the day.

There are two other points I will mention: appeals to RMPAT where there is a dispute between councils and RPDC over assessment and approval of planning schemes. This seems a bit superfluous. At the end of the day there has to be a final arbitrator. If there has been an error at law, then the final step is the Supreme Court. They are always there as a backstop.

It would seem that there is too much in there and that it needs to be somewhat diminished, somewhat smaller. The other point I was going to mention again was the shortage of planners. I have previously referred to this but I want to mention that the Launceston City Council have led the way in recent years by using cadets as planners. I did raise this by way of interjection with the member for Rowallan when he was talking about this matter. This practice when it was commenced in Launceston was a way of getting over the dearth of planners. It was frowned on within other local government areas and State Government frowned on it when it was commenced. However, it is now recognised that this is an acceptable practice and one that we may need to look at to build up and provide the number of planners that are necessary in this State. That was a concept by that council.

I commend the member for Rowallan and the other members of the committee for the thorough way in which they have carried out this review and this inquiry and for the report that has come into this Chamber. I would like to see a lot of changes made within the planning schemes because it has caused frustration and concern. It is causing concern to developers as well. I offer Trevallyn as an example. On one side of the street in Trevallyn is a part of Launceston where you can build to certain requirements and setbacks et cetera, but on the opposite side of the street, which becomes West Tamar, there is another set of rules and regulations that apply. To me it is a nonsense and we do need to have some consistency right across the whole State. It would make it a much better system.