Mr DEAN (Windermere) - I would like to commence, Mr President, by saying that as a serving alderman with the Launceston City Council, I too have concerns when a State wants to meddle in what is clearly a local government responsibility. I think this is a similar comment to the member for Rowallan's when he commenced to speak on this. This is clearly a local government responsibility and why the Government would want to become involved in it is beyond me.

This bill is an additional reason for local governments, in my view, having to fight for constitutional rights. I will go into that a little further later on. As I understand it, and it has been said today on a number of occasions, the Hobart City Council give in-principle support for the establishment of a waterfront authority so that in itself is a good starting point. However, having said that, it is the old story of the affected body or an interested party saying that the consultation process preceding the writing of a bill left a lot to be desired.

I think that comes from, and I just refer to a part of a report from the Lord Mayor, Mr Valentine, dated 16 November 2004, when he says this:

'The Council worked cooperatively for 18 months with the Government and the Ports Corporation, through the Waterfront Project Steering Committee, to advance the preparation of the Waterfront Urban Design Framework document and indicated its preparedness to consider appropriate implementation and management models. These models were never developed nor discussed with the steering committee, or Council and the intention to establish a new Waterfront Authority was a unilateral decision of the Government, made without warning or discussion with its waterfront partner.

That does concern me. Proper and effective consultation is an essential process in any changes, whatever those changes might be, and in most cases will resolve any differences between or amongst parties. I just find it amazing that that comment should be made by the Hobart City Council to say that the processes of consultation did not occur in the way that they ought to have done. It is a fairly easy process. Mr President, last year I was somewhat castigated for using a word here to describe the current Government, and the member for Huon used it a moment ago. This is really what comes from an arrogant government, in my view. I did say I would not use that word this year at all to identify the Government, but there you go, I have broken down. In my view, it does come from arrogance. It is unfortunate that, when governments become arrogant, these are the processes that almost always break down - that is, the consultation process.

The Local Government Association of Tasmania body have been involved in this matter and have had discussions with the Premier. I want to quote from a LGAT document written for a meeting to take place on 29 November 2004. It is under an item titled 'Hobart Waterfront' and it says:

'The Association has made strong representations in a meeting with the Premier expressing its concerns at the unilateral decision to take away perhaps the most fundamental of roles of a council. The Association highlighted the dissatisfaction of such heavy handed tactics indicating that it was not in the spirit of the relationship that had been developed between State and Local Government and not in keeping with the agreed arrangements under the Consultation and Communication Partnership Agreement. The President had discussed the meeting with GMC members prior to attendance.

The Premier acknowledged the concerns of the Association indicating that it was not the intention of the State Government to replicate the arrangement around the state and that the waterfront action was singular. He expressed a strong desire to supplement the current planning process with greater expertise to achieve the best possible outcomes for the waterfront area. The proposed efforts of the planning authority will include more detailed attention to the design process and the establishment of development plans for specific areas within the waterfront precinct.'

And that is an agenda item for discussion at the Local Government Association meeting next Monday, Mr President. The concern of councils is that the Government is now likely to step in at any time to take over what it considers to be a pristine area or an area of State significance, of some significance. Perhaps, for example, the Launceston Port area or, God forbid, perhaps the Gorge, the Devonport River area. There are a number of areas that one could identify around this State, where there are icons -

Mr Aird - Why haven't they named Punchbowl? Get serious.

Mr DEAN - No, we would gladly give you Punchbowl. If you want Punchbowl, that is not a problem.

Mr Aird - Well, be consistent.

Mr DEAN - There are a few rose bushes there to establish in summer.

Mr Aird - Beautiful rhododendrons.

Mr DEAN - There are a number of other icons around this State that are currently under local government control, and local government have responsibility for them. The point I am making is that this State, any time it wants to, can just step in and take over one of those icons with the setting up of a special authority.

Mr Fletcher - Only if approved by the Parliament.

Mr DEAN - Yes, only if approved by Parliament, you are right. You are dead right. And the thing is that, as with this situation, the Government can - and this special authority is in existence for 10 years, as I understand it, and that has been identified, and after that 10 years the State will pull back from it and it will be left once again for the local government to handle and take control of it, whatever the position of that development has been. Is it the intention of the State to simply leave - and I refer to the three R's which is often referred to in local government - local governments with roads, rates and rubbish? I think that is a reasonable question to be asked.

Again I repeat some comments - and I want to refer to this gentleman again; I referred to him the other day - of Mr Dean Jaensch AO, Professor in the School of Political and International Studies, Flinders University, when he argued strongly that if local governments do not aspire to constitutional recognition and get it, they run the risk of being at the mercy of State governments, accepting only what the States do not want and having to accept amalgamations, accepting that the State relinquishing any responsibility as a State cannot make political mileage out of, taking over the tasks and responsibilities that governments for some reason or another do not want, cost shifting - and we have heard plenty of that currently occurring with local government where with the stroke of a pen on top of all of this they have the ability to abolish any council they want to at any time. I think that really there is every reason local government ought to be considering strongly a push for constitutional recognition and to become a tier of government, not a sphere of government.

Isn't that only too true. Here big brother has said you are not responsible enough to control the waterfront so we will have a go at it for 10 years and then give it back. If we stuff it up, too bad. At what cost? The committee, the CEO position and the other infrastructure necessary will be an enormous cost to the taxpayer. At one stage during the briefing this morning I think the figure of $1.3 million was mentioned by one of the people who was briefing us -

Mr Harriss - It was $1.52 million.

Mr DEAN - Well, I think $1.3 million, if my memory serves me correctly, was mentioned. Interestingly, during a break I spoke to the member for Rosevears and I said to him, 'I would be very surprised if that figure does not reach $2 million by the end of the briefing, by the end of the day' and, lo and behold, later in that briefing we were told it would be up around $1.5 million to $2 million.

Mr Aird - Your recollection is incorrect. There was no mention of $1.3 million.

Mr DEAN - The unfortunate thing is, as I said, we do not have the ability of referring back to Hansard.

Mr Aird - In any event, if you look at the commitment given by the Premier in the lower House you will see that he mentioned the $1.5 million figure; it is on the public record.

Mr Finch - I didn't hear $1.3 million.

Mr DEAN - I thought I did and if I was incorrect I would accept that position and not refer to it further.

In any event, Mr President, it is going to be an extremely expensive authority. We have been told by the Lord Mayor that there were some 30?odd development applications in the last year and that was referred to by the member for Huon as well. Out of those development applications I think there were five, what I would refer to as 'meaty' development applications. In other words, the others were of quite a minor nature.

The State has said that this is not likely to be replicated anywhere else in the State and I guess time will tell as to whether or not that does occur. Council currently have 12 members of the community democratically elected to the council, Mr President, to run the affairs of the Hobart municipal area. These 12 people are accountable to the community. The council quite properly, in my view, see the transfer of planning powers to a new authority not elected by the community as wrong and accordingly do not support that aspect of it. As you have heard, they support the establishment of an authority in principle.

I ask the question: what is this community likely to establish that the current Sullivans Cove Advisory Committee will not, or are not able to do at the present time? A new panel will be set up in a similar way which, we are told, mirrors that of the Sullivans Cove Advisory Committee. That committee's members are appointed by the minister and we are further told that the decisions and advice given by that group to the council are very seldomly departed from and, as I said, that group of people, the 12 people who have been elected by the people of the Hobart municipal area to look after and run their affairs. I really do wonder what more will be achieved by this special committee. The minister selects the committee members and therefore effectively has had control of development to a large degree ever since the setting up of that committee and we are told the council rarely departs from a position held by the committee. We are not told how often they do depart from it but we are told it is very rarely. I guess if the minister was not happy with that committee, the constitution of it would have been changed. If he was not getting the return expected from it, one would have thought that the constitution would have been changed as the minister saw fit.

I referred to five applications in the last 12 months, at a cost to this State of, if this bill gets up, $2 million or thereabouts and I would be very surprised if it does not well and truly exceed $2 million. I have not seen too many authorities in my lifetime that have been set up where they have come in on the expected cost in the first instance. There are normally a lot of other costs associated with it; the necessary infrastructure, the payment of salaries and all of those other things. I will be very surprised at the end of the day if this authority can operate within the amount that has been identified to us - that is, $1.5 million to 2 million.

The council is seeking five outcomes from these changes and really when you look closely at each outcome they are very reasonable. Will the Government give any ground? They know what the five outcomes are. But will they give any ground or undertaking with regard to these issues? I will just refer to those issues. I will read them into Hansard. I do not think they have been read into Hansard at this stage.

The outcomes sought by the Council are:

'The establishment of an Authority that operates within the existing state planning system and maintains the security of the current checks and balances that ensures the contribution of the community to development proposals in the Cove.

I would have thought that is a very reasonable requirement. The second one:

'In the event that amendments to the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme (including the establishment of development Plans) are considered necessary that these follow the established procedures and processes already established in the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.'

That is LUPA. Once again I would have thought that was a reasonable position for a council to have. The third one:

'The maintenance of third party appeal rights with respect to discretionary development undertaken in accordance with Development Plans.'

Four:

'Security and certainty for the Council to continue to run its major events in the Cove with a high degree of autonomy.'

And the last point was:

'A greater commitment from the Government to consult with the Council regarding the coordination and installation of new infrastructure within the planning area and to consider its impact on existing Council infrastructure now and in the future.'

This bill does have huge implications for all councils and I am not at all surprised that LGAT have it on their agenda as a main issue of discussion to take place next Monday. It is a huge issue and it is of great concern to many local government areas within this State. I have not heard an alderman or a councillor yet speak in support of it. I guess there are some out there who might support it. The ones whom I have spoken to are very concerned about it and at this stage they are not convinced, as I am not at this time, but the Government might be able to convince me that I ought to be supporting the bill.

In closing, I want to refer to one or two of the comments made from the briefing this morning. It was mentioned that the area here that we are talking about is an icon, not only an icon for Tasmanians but for all Australians and that that is a reason for this authority being set up. But there are many others falling into that category as well. It is not the only one. The Hobart City Council told us that what they want is the best system; an authority that meets all the needs. We were told that this morning, and I think that is a reasonable requirement of a council, that at the end of the day they will once again have to accept responsibility for this area. They will have to support the infrastructure that is necessary to work with all of the development that occurs.

Mr Valentine raised the issue of whether this is a power play by this Government, or do they believe that they can do it better? I do not know whether it is a power play or whether it is the latter. I would hope it is the latter but I am not convinced that that authority would have any more ability to control and run that area than the 12 good elected members of this council.
The other comment made in the briefing was, 'It hasn't been thought through properly. We need to sit down and work through this'. I mentioned that before, at the beginning of my speech. I am not satisfied - I cannot see any reason the two groups could not come together now to further discuss this issue. There are problems, there are concerns there. Why would the Government want to bring this matter into the system when they know very well that the Hobart City Council have huge problems and difficulties with it? Would not one think that they would want to sit down and try to reach some common ground in this and come up with an outcome that both organisations can comfortably work with? I do not see that as a difficulty. I have identified one of the reasons probably that has not occurred and I do not want to use that word again.

Mr Valentine referred to the partnership agreement to strategically plan the cove together. I do not really see where the setting up of this authority to work on its own, in some disregard for the local government, works in with that partnership agreement in any way whatsoever. It really flies in the face of what that is all about. If the Hobart City Council withdrew from the total partnership, one would not wonder why.

We heard about the Tasmania Together goals. The way this authority has been set up really does not fit in with those goals at all. If I can read this handwriting, Mr President, I will read through those goals.

Goal 12 - provide Tasmanians with the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their lives.

Goal 13 - a system of government that is open, seeks and listens to people's views and ideas and uses them in decision making at all levels.

Goal 14 - ensure there is greater cooperation at all levels of government and among political parties to improve the lives of Tasmanians.

Goal 15 - have a system of government that is accountable to the people and plans for the future at all levels.

This authority, as we know, has the ability to do just about anything it wants to. I do have some concerns with it and it does not, in my view, fit comfortably within those Tasmania Together goals.

I think the gentleman from the Sullivans Cove Citizens Association when he was talking to us identified that one reason for setting up the authority was the lack of progress identified by the Government. During that briefing we were given a number of developments that occurred in that area over a long period of time and I am aware of a lot of those developments as well and I am not satisfied that there has not been a lot of progress there. If the Government stands on that as one reason for the setting up of this authority then I really do not think that they are being reasonable.

The other matter that was mentioned was that there will be closed meetings of this new authority and no publicity as to results, that it lacks transparency, lacks the ability to be challenged, will not be able to be criticised, lacks integrity -

Mr Aird - You know it's going to report to the Parliament, don't you?

Mr DEAN - What, the authority? Anything that the authority approves will come back -
Mr Aird - There will be an annual report.

Mr DEAN - Yes, I am aware that there would be an annual report.

Mr Aird - That is fair enough, the same as any other authority.

Mr DEAN - Yes. I am not satisfied that many of the existing differences could not be resolved through further consultation between the two major players, government and local government. It seems to me that where the Government cannot quickly come to a mutual agreement, they just want to rush on regardless, and that does appear to be the situation here. Very clearly it seems that they could not come to some agreement with the Hobart City Council and that they have said, 'To hell with you, we are going to push on regardless' and hence the structure of this bill currently before us.

Mr President, I do not want to continue on because the other members have articulated the position very well, but I want to conclude by saying that unless the Government are fairly convincing in the arguments that they now put up, I cannot see myself supporting this current bill. I wait and will listen with interest to any further discussion and argument that is produced in relation to this matter.