Land Use Planning and Approvals (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026

[4.48 p.m.]

Ms BURNET (Clark) - Chair, I rise to make my contribution to the Land Use Planning and Approvals (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026. I thank the minister, Mr Vincent, and his staff, and staff from the State Planning Office who provided us with a briefing and answered some of the questions that arose from that briefing.

Planning is such an important component of the laws and foundations of how local government and local communities work. I acknowledge the 22 submissions received on the bill. Most of those were from councils and most were broadly supportive of the bill. We've heard already that the Planning Matters Alliance had some serious concerns in relation to the bill. I would like to have some of those concerns allayed with the answers to the questions already asked of the minister who has introduced this bill.

This is unfortunate in that it is a grab bag of measures designed to streamline, so to speak, some aspects of the Land Use Planning Approval Act, particularly with the commencement of the Tasmanian planning provisions and new regional land use strategies. We know and have heard from others that planning is complex. Planning needs some clearly delineated laws and ways of interpreting this. Nobody would say that it is an easy area.

Some of those changes are largely supported by developers, industry and across local government. As I said, PMAT had the most vigorous concerns to the amendment.  Glenorchy City Council has suggested interim amendments be limited to those needed to urgently address heritage protection, natural or environmental hazards, public health and public safety - all really important things for our local communities. I'll talk to some of the issues that were identified in the submissions. I won't talk to all of the things that have been aired already, but I'll touch on some of the points.

Firstly, mapping, which may create issues if other statewide maps are adopted and cannot be superseded by local council maps which have more recent or more accurate data. Currently councils commission flood studies to provide a higher level of detail than SES mapping. There was concern raised that the type of mapping to be adopted in the SPPs extends beyond hazard mapping and may involve other strategic considerations such as heritage places or scenic road corridors, overriding councils' input on these matters.

Most of the council's submissions support removing the expectation that councils bear the cost and administrative burden of preparing LPS amendments solely to update mapping. The question is, will the state maintain a program for ongoing review, updating and quality of assurance, of the flood mapping in particular? The Local Government Association of Tasmania also notes that the implementation of the land use planning and building control policy options report from the Tasmanian Land Use Planning and Building Control Policy for Flood Risk Management Project must be properly resourced to create appropriate pathways for councils to have detailed local flood mapping efficiently assessed and adopted. This process could also ensure alignment of mapping methodologies to improve statewide consistency.

Some councils expressed a concern about the broadening of interim state planning provisions. Both the Local Government Association of Tasmania and the City of Hobart drew parallels with the interim planning directives issued under the former LUPA Act that were used to inappropriately curtail local government's capacity to respond to local concerns. In particular, Planning Directive 6 and the impact it had on Hobart City Council's local provisions schedule. One council has queried whether the planning authority should also agree before it commences. I share this concern. Another has suggested the need for criteria around public interest and other impacts to prevent this from recurring. The Australian Institute of Architects also supported the establishment of clear criteria to guide when interim amendments are appropriate.

To my earlier point about the grab bag of planning reform - and that's no slight on planning staff. It's really the beast that we have before us that is of considerable concern. Some councils and Australian Institute of Architects took the opportunity to highlight that there is, yet another Band-Aid on an act that is in desperate need of a complete overhaul. Since the government has come to power, it's introduced 15 bills to amend LUPAA, an act that is now 33 years old. We've had major planning reform and, again, Peter Gutwein, who was planning minister way back when, talked about cheaper, faster planning reforms and, unfortunately, it's not been delivered at all. As I said, there's been 15 bills to amend LUPAA and the act is 33 years old. It can be contrasted with South Australia who took the opportunity to overhaul their 1993 planning legislation in 2016 and is now seen as a model for housing policy and infrastructure development. A recent national scorecard issued by the HIA, which assesses each state's planning strategies and initiatives to improve their housing supply and affordability, unfortunately ranked Tasmania towards the bottom of the pack. South Australia was equal first. Now, I'm not suggesting by any means that all of that state's planning approaches are gold standard or worth championing. We need something that's fit for purpose for Tasmania and Tasmanian councils, but there is something we can learn in a wholesale overhaul of LUPAA and LGBMP.

I'll draw on the LGAT submission on the development assessment panels 2024, which said,

Our planning legislation ... is now over three decades old, was literally made for a different century, and is a Frankenstein's monster of amendments. Its processes are antiquated, complicated, and at times even conflicting and irrational. Councillors rely on this every day for proposal assessment and decision making. This is foundational and a state responsibility.

So, this has to be got right and it's no longer good enough to keep leaving this for another time. It's also worth noting the recommendation 4 of the 2024 state of the environment report was for the Tasmanian government to,

review all legislation that is informed by the existing RMPS objectives to ensure that that legislation establishes contemporary and effective decision making. If such a review is undertaken, it is recommended priority is given to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 -

amongst other acts. As I said, the most vigorous opposition to the amendments is from PMAT, and so I need the minister to allay some of those concerns that were raised by PMAT in his response.

Lastly, the requirement to notify the development applicant that an application is valid, 54(3)(a) is not supported by a number of councils because it creates an unnecessary administrative burden on them and may also create further delay. It is considered that most councils provide an informal statement to applicants at the beginning of the eight-day review period and that, if no update is provided, then the information provided is considered to be satisfactory. 'If council does not notify an applicant that the additional information request has been satisfied, it is unclear whether there is a process or penalty.' I raised this question during the briefing and it was answered when it was taken on notice.

In essence, there are some patchwork amendments in this bill before us today, and I really hope that the government does grasp the nettle and look at real and meaningful reform so that we have a robust LUPAA or its equivalent. Thank you.