Peter McGlone, Director, Tasmanian Conservation Trust
Some of you may have read the so-called ‘Fact Check’ on he Planning Policy Unit’s website (see link) that claims to be responding to “incorrect advice and interpretation of the Major Projects Bill (MPB) that is circulating in the community”.
https://planningreform.tas.gov.au/major-projects-fact-check/fact-check
Far from being a “Fact Check”, as claimed, the document is a dangerously inaccurate and misleading.
The purpose of the PPU’s document is to distract us, make us unsure of our arguments and get us caught up in detailed technical or irrelevant arguments – so don’t get caught in that trap.
The PPU misrepresents or avoids commenting on many of our arguments, makes false claims about key elements of the MPB and uses misleading or irrelevant comparisons with the PORS legislation.
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE PLANNING POLICY UNIT’S DOCUMENT
Go to the end of this document for a full critique: TCT ‘Fact Check’ on the Planning Policy Unit’s ‘Fact Check’ document.
The Planning Policy Unit has avoided commenting on some of our most powerful criticisms e.g.:
- that the major project process can compel the TPC to amend a planning scheme (think Cambria) to ensure it conforms with an approved major project;
- the removal of the highrise clause that was in the second version of the bill; and
- the government still haven’t provided a justification for the MP legislation or explained what is wrong with the Projects of Regional Significance (PORS) legislation.
PPU’s incorrect statements and misleading arguments
The Planning Policy Unit has made outrageous and incorrect statements in responding to some of our most serious concerns. For example the PPU have claimed that the lack of appeal rights is not significant because the Panel’s hearing performs the same or similar function as an appeal (point 5).
The PPU twice claim the minister’s power to declare projects is limited by the requirement that it meets the guidelines but these guidelines are not mandatory (the TPC may make them) and the minister only has to ‘have regard’ to them and does not have to follow them (points 1 and 8).
The PPU claims incredibly that there will be “greater independent scrutiny and more public process than normal Local Government assessment” (point 7). In defending this position the PPU do not mention that there is no right to appeal approvals in the MP process, which is the critical element of independent scrutiny. The independence of the DAP members must be questioned as there is no guarantee that any will be TPC members and the Minister has a key role in appointing one member (point 1).
The PPU claims the MP process is not a fast track because of the length the MP assessment process (point 6). It is a lengthy process but this does not in any way make up for the key processes that are missed e.g. no rights of appeal and no vote by your elected councillors.
The Planning Policy Unit asks ‘Why do we need a Panel?’ and ‘Why can’t the TPC assess it?’. The PPU simply says that it is retaining the Panels that are allowed for under the PORS process and doesn’t answer the question ‘Why do we need a Panel?’ (point 3). It fails to provide a justification for the Panel replacing the TPC in assessing and approving MPs (point 3).
The PPU justifies taking major projects assessment and approval away from local government by saying that the TPC currently has authority to amend planning schemes and assess and approve Projects of State Significance (point 7). Having the TPC responsible for these existing processes and decisions in no way justifies taking major projects assessment and approvals away from local councils.
PPU mis-represents our position
The supposed Fact Check document is full of opinion masquerading as fact and misrepresents many of our claims. Critically the PPU document does not reference any document that it claims to be correcting.
The PPU refers to arguments that no one seems to be raising e.g. that the normal permits from the EPA, Heritage Council etc are not required (point 4) while avoiding responding to our key concern that local councils will be cut out of having a say over approval of the MP.
The PPU claim that we have said the minister has too much power and insinuates that we have claimed the minister makes the final approval (point 1). Our argument is that the minister has too much power in the critical first step of declaring a MP. We have not said the minister is involved in approving the major project.
The Planning Policy Unit dismisses our concerns about the TPC being sidelined (point 2). The PPU claim that there is little or no difference between the TPC and DAP doing an assessment and approval when we think they are very different institutions. The PPU fails to respond to our key complaint that there is no guarantee that any TPC members are on the DAP.
PPU’s comparison of Major Projects process to the Projects of Regional Significance Process is irrelevant and incorrect
The PPU Fact Check persistently compares features of the Major Projects Bill to the PORS process (point 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8) in an attempt to justify the MPB. How similar or different the PORS and MPB processes are is not a relevant argument. We simply oppose the MPB and see much that is wrong with the PORS as well. The PPU fail to point out that the PORS process has never been used or attempt to explain why.
The PPU has falsely claimed that key elements of the PORS and MP are the same when this is incorrect. Critically, the PORS criteria are limited to regional projects whereas the MP criteria apply to projects of regional and state significance (point 8).
Major Projects process could replace Projects of State Significance (POSS)
While the PPU seem to argue that the MPB is making some minor refinements to the PORS processes this understates the implications of the legislation. One consequence of the MPB that the PPU do not address is that not only would the major projects permit process replace the PORS process but they could also displace the current planning process for Projects of State Significance (POSS) under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (Tas). That is because, arguably, any project that might be considered to be of state significance could also be eligible for a major project declaration under the Major Projects Bill. A key difference between the POSS process and the proposed process relating to major projects is that a POSS project is of no effect until approved by both Houses of Parliament. There is no equivalent provision for parliamentary oversight in the Major Projects Bill.