9 September 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to speak to the Land Use Planning and Approvals (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill of 2026. I think members might appreciate this, because I'll probably go to 12.45 p.m., sorry.

It is a bill that practically flew through the other place, with not a single member wishing to speak in Committee to any of the clauses of the bill. Surely, members in the other place were also receiving emails and were able to access the submissions in response to the consultation draft.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank honourable members who have amendments to help strengthen the bill and appreciate the briefings that we've received from the government and from the minister. However, even with the amendments, I'm not certain if I can support the bill as currently presented. However, in saying that, I'm interested in hearing from other honourable members, especially the detail in the debate when this House goes into the Committee stage.

I always support legislation to go into the Committee stage and, even if I'm not generally supportive of the bill, I believe our role and responsibility is to strengthen the bill through

amendments via rigorous debate. I was astonished to note from the record of the Votes and Proceedings for the bill in the other place, which stated, and I quote directly from the record:

33. Bill No 22. The Land Use Planning and Approvals (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026 was, according to Order, read the Second time, and in accordance with Standing Orders, there being no Member wishing to speak to the Clauses in the Committee of the Whole House;
Ordered, That the bill be now read the Third time. And the Bill was, accordingly, read the Third time.
We have a bill that drew 22 considered submissions, many of which proposed changes, reform and amendments, and yet addressing such matters in the Committee of the Whole was beyond its control. It is an astonishing outcome. Just imagine the community backlash if we were to do the same here on such an important and emotive subject, with the numerous emails we've received about this piece of legislation. I believe I've responded to 400 to 500 emails regarding this bill from concerned Tasmanians, and yet this legislation did not even go into the committee stage downstairs for debate. I find that both interesting and concerning.

It's yet another bill which has come straight through to the Legislative Council with a rubber stamp and without amendment, which is something of a surprise as members' contributions to the second reading debate in the other place spoke of their concerns with yet another LUPAA amendment bill, and the opinion that its rushed presentation did not allow time for any amendments to be finalised and debated.

In reflecting on the overall nature of the bill, it is perhaps the latest attempt at a band aid solution to solve the problem that is the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, and from a government that has introduced 15 such bills since it has come to power. There is growing consensus that we need to start again with the end in mind and overhaul what is now a 33-year-old act into something that is fit for modern day Tasmania.

However, it is a bill that is once again being left to us as the House of review to properly examine the implications in its wording, to consider the scope of its functions and operation and, if necessary, to do something about it. Despite the honeyed words in the fact sheet about 'minor changes to either clarify provisions or make processes fairer, more certain and more efficient', it is an invidious bill full of fine words and good intentions, and yet one which seems to mask lots of unintended consequences. Many of these consequences we have heard of in an overflowing inbox of community concern, in our fulsome briefings, and in the 22 submissions from the consultation process of the bill. That's why I am pleased that we're having this debate and putting it on the record, so the government has a chance to respond and allay some of those concerns or misunderstandings that we may have about this bill.

The bill has attracted a lot of attention from individuals and groups in our wider community, with a range of emails coming our way, all with a common theme that speaks to a growing community wariness of the government's policy motivations and decision-making processes behind the proposed changes.

Once again, we have a government opposition absolutely in lockstep supporting the bill exactly as drafted, perhaps which is no surprise when it comes to controversial planning

matters. We only need to look back at the recent infrastructure and planning debacle around the stadium to see how much the two major parties have enjoyed a top-down sense of coercion and control in dismissing community concerns.

There is an adage that if you are used to being an emperor, then democracy has nothing to offer you. We only have to look overseas to other nations to see the full impact of the use and abuse of modern-day autocracy by modern-day emperors. I would hate to think that the Tasmanian government sees itself as being above reproach, as that is a surefire way to lose any mandate it thinks it still might have. Tasmanians can acknowledge a sense of pride, but when the humble elements of that disappear and pure ego takes over, that is quite a different matter.
I'm not surprised that the popularity of independents and minor parties is on the rise. For both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, a period of thoughtful introspection might just reveal that for the emperors, some sharply democratic tailoring might be worth considering, covering up what should not ever be seen in public. Only this week we all received an email comment from an articulate Tasmanian professional that neatly sums up the underlying community sentiment, and I quote:

Once again, the Rockliff government have resorted to underhand dealings and lack of transparency to push through another Bill that will in effect give the Minister total control over any changes to the state planning laws without reference to local government or the community. This is not a democratic process. Whilst the current planning is far from perfect, at least at a local level the community have a voice and can make themselves heard if necessary. The power will rest with the Minister to make unilateral decisions on planning, no doubt in concert with developers. Underhand tactics, lack of transparency and dictatorship government. By passing advice by the Tasmanian Commission will leave little option for appeal. An appalling situation but one that we see on a regular basis with this government.

When communities believe that legitimate concerns are being ignored, communities have every right to question government legislation - especially legislation that seeks to centralise decision-making powers to those it deems worthy and further remove local knowledge, expertise and community voices from the process.

The bill before us today is exactly as I have described: a bill that quietly prioritises centralised power and control. The provisions of this bill will only amplify the community disquiet around the government's decision on the Marinus project, the North West Transmission Developments, AI data centres and dare I mention, the Mac Point stadium too. All of these have prioritised corporate benefits and profit over a truly benevolent and democratic social licence for all of Tasmania.

Planning decisions must always, always have a local impact. That's exactly why local contributions must be recognised in planning processes. For many years, Tasmanians have relied on councils acting as planning authorities to make equitable decisions based on strategic principles informed by local knowledge. The problem comes when statewide policies clash with local imperatives. That's where statewide planning policy comes in as an attempt to regulate those differences.

We only need to look back to the relatively recent Stony Rise development. It's one which necessitated the unprecedented need to bring on an act of parliament to override the rezoning restriction policy from the Tasmanian Planning Commission - an application that was blocked despite the staunch support of the Devonport City Council and the wider business community for the development.

What the bill does is impose a general statewide generic overlay that overrides the Local Provisions Schedule. It embeds extraordinary new powers in the gift of the minister for Planning and the government that appoints them. Sophie Underwood, in her role as the State Director of Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania, summed it up well in a recent article where she stated:

'The Government has completely failed to explain the unprecedented new powers we believe this Bill will hand to the Minister for Planning,' said Sophie Underwood, State Director of Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania.

'Is the reason these changes have not been made 100% clear because the Bill gives the Minister new powers to rezone land? We believe the Bill allows for the concentration of Ministerial power, creating a system whereby the Minister initiates the draft amendment to a planning scheme, with statewide application, and then holds the ultimate veto or approval power.

'Communities and local councils will have little recourse if a Minister decides to push through a controversial statewide zone change, particularly those that favour specific commercial or political interests over local community interests or strategic planning.

'These could include zoning changes to facilitate data centres and property development.

'When a politician can modify or approve rules that affect every region in the state, on both public and private land, without being bound by independent recommendations from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, it diminishes public confidence in the fairness of the planning system.'

I reiterate the point that this government is continually losing the trust of large sections of our community - and it's not like the opposition is stepping up to take its place either. Indeed, we have divisive and opportunistic populist parties that are happily sweeping up supporters - supporters who are struggling with cost-of-living pressures and a burning sense of injustice, and have lost faith with the major parties and their political processes. How is it this legislation was pushed through the House of Assembly with very few questions and little time for debate?

Given that the development application of the Firmus AI factory at Wesley Vale is now being considered by Latrobe Council, it is the detail in clause 10 of this bill that has particularly caught my attention. Latrobe Council is dear to my heart, as is the Devonport Council area.

Like so much of the work we have with legislation, it is drafted in a way to say what something is not, rather than what something is. Section 81 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 concerns itself with defining the term 'subdivide', or

specifically what is not defined by the word 'subdivide'. The proposed new subclause seeks to insert another set of defined facilities and structures which are not to be seen to subdivide, in terms of a lease or licence, as new paragraph (f) states, and which I quote in full:

(f) a lease or licence for the installation, operation or maintenance of telecommunications or digital facilities, renewable energy infrastructure or other utility infrastructure that is reasonably necessary for or incidental to those purposes;

The paragraphs relating to it suggest that a lease or licence capable of running for more than 10 years is seen to subdivide a parcel of land. That is despite not creating a new title or entry on the land registry, which you would think is the very act of defining a subdivision. In layperson's terms, it makes no sense at all to have such clauses, let alone to add yet another.

I got a question a minute ago: 'Michael, can you ask, is the Wesley Vale site the site that's just been referred to the major projects process? Will the developers be leasing the land? If so, this bill will make it easier for them to do so.' I would like the Leader to take that question on board: if the Wesley Vale site is being leased, will this bill make it easier for that to go ahead?

Of the 22 submissions to the consultation draft, I found five - one each from Huon Valley Council, Meander Valley Council, Clarence City Council, LGAT and PMAT - that question the need for such an amendment.

Huon Valley Council discussed the section at some length and one of its two key requests in its whole submission was that:

That the Bill be amended to comprehensively exclude all leases of land from the definition of subdivide in section 80(1) of the LGBMP Act, rather than adopting a narrow infrastructure-specific exclusion.

PMAT's submission also challenged the rationale for the amendment and questioned the lack of evidence for statements in the Background Report for Consultation document for the bill such as 'unintended consequences', 'sufficient legal uncertainty that needs to be rectified' and the suggestion that other states have made similar changes without saying where, when and why.

I also ask the Leader for the Government, in her response, to explain the need for this addition. What problem is it looking to solve? How and why did the original clause come into being? What has stopped the government from acting in a spirit of goodwill on the suggested changes in the five submissions that queried the point?

Also, in light of Huon Valley Council's comment that in the last 32 years it has never received a subdivision application based on a lease arrangement, I ask the Leader for the Government, how many subdivision applications have been made in the whole of Tasmania since the original act came into being?

What has caught the immediate attention of an already sensitive and hypervigilant community, when it comes to Marinus and Firmus is the reference in the amendment to 'digital facilities and renewable energy infrastructure or other utility infrastructure'. Can the government explain its rationale for the inclusion of these terms? Is it another carve-up to

facilitate the development of new AI data centres? Or is it a dastardly means of avoiding compensating landholders or paying them any form of rent or wayleaves on what must be a 10-year-plus 'lease' or 'licence' for the siting of transmission towers, or for the high-voltage powerlines that may cross their land?

As an existing example of a similar precedent, the United Kingdom has a long-established system of annual payments for compensating landholders for hosting power transmission and digital communications infrastructure in such circumstances, and one that's well recognised. It even pays 'rent' on the lines that cross land without any towers or poles. Maybe the government should seek to do the same here to assuage community concerns, especially with the controversial 'for profit' NWTD project, and no doubt more to come.

I would like to highlight part of the submission from West Tamar Council which I think is highly relevant to the last point. West Tamar Council pointed out the recommendation 7.8 of the draft Tasmanian Planning Policies Report - June 2024 was not included. It states:

7.8 Investigate any implications of the applications of TPPs to decision making for Major Projects as currently required by the Act.

Considering the growing community concern with the unregulated rollout of AI factories across the north and north-west, I would have thought an investigation of this sort would be a priority. In fact, whilst the bill in its entirety is all about centralising planning controls, it seems as if the AI factory applications have been left to local councils to approve or face an immediate appeal - almost with no other option, despite the obvious implications on the total power supply requirements in Tasmania. It is far too easy to handball this issue to 29 individual councils. The state government should be taking a lead role. Data centres, for or against, need a robust statewide policy approach and future strategy.

If we are looking at applications that have a statewide impact that are being left to local councils to deliberate on, where do the Major Projects or POSS processes fit within LUPAA? Surely the bill before us gives us a perfect opportunity to address what is a unique and rapidly evolving situation.

It is a point that has been well made by Peter Freshney in his role as the Mayor of Latrobe Council, which is having to consider the development application for the latest Firmus AI factory at Wesley Vale. In a recent ABC article exploring the issue, he was quoted as saying:

We, as planning authorities, have to assess under an antiquated act [that is] unable to consider those things that primarily concern our constituents. It's not necessarily appropriate for development applications that are highly technical, as in the tech sector, that are complex, that have potentially significant environmental impact and significant impact economically.

It seems to be an absurd situation where a new industry, with planned developments across the north and north-west, will potentially make Firmus Tasmania's largest single power consumer, which at roughly 400 megawatts is 20 per cent of our total power supply. If that is not worthy of being considered as a Major Project or Project of State Significance, then what is? It is not good enough for the government to wash its hands and hide behind planning process semantics.

Apparently, the Premier and the Planning minister disagree as they have the view that the Wesley Vale AI factory development application could be accommodated within the existing planning scheme.

Latrobe mayor Mr Freshney challenged that perspective and was quoted as saying, 'That's something we have to discuss at our council and determine if we want to take that course of action.' As a former president of the Local Government Association of Tasmania and past mayor of Latrobe for 12 years, I recognise the pressure Mr Freshney and his councillors are under, and the impossible choices they have to make in current circumstances.
As an update to Mr Freshney's reported comments, on Monday 7 September, Latrobe Council held a special council meeting at which, as a planning authority, it moved unanimously to write to the minister recommending that the current application be assessed under the Major Projects framework. In moving the motion, he highlighted the clear assessment gap under the current regulatory framework with no specific use class for data centres. He went on to highlight that the Tasmanian Planning Scheme is too outdated to adequately assist AI data setup developments and that the decision has the potential to be a key input and reference point for the state.

I have to ask, what the minister's response to Latrobe Council will be, if he has not already replied. There is also the elephant in the room that, as we're in the middle of a LUPAA amendment bill, why on earth hasn't the issue of assessment of data centres and AI infrastructure been a critical element of the bill before us today? I must also ask the minister if he's inclined to deny the request from Latrobe Council, what additional support is the government willing to provide to Latrobe Council in what is an impossible situation and growing community disquiet?

It might appear that I am confusing or mixing the bill we have in front of us with AI data centres, but that's the confusion that's in the public domain. That needs to be clarified and the government needs to take a clear role in this. I do not want to be passing a piece of legislation that, as a consequence, will negatively impact my community by allowing something to go ahead that hasn't gone through the proper process.

In looking to the failings of the act, further support has come from David Adams, a professor in management at the University of Tasmania. He was quoted as saying the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act was 'not fit for purpose' to deal with AI data centres. He went on to explain that was because it did not require consideration of the broader 'cumulative impact' of multiple AI data centres. You would think in the face of such a divisive issue, the government would have taken the initiative and considered AI data centres as a Major Project or Project of State Significance. Or is it the seductive nature of playing Firmus' full-price power offer against Rio Tinto Bell Bay Aluminium's power supply negotiations? A real power play of vested interests and one where the government has abandoned local councils and councillors as only so much cannon fodder in the Hydro price war.

Surely, this bill would have been a perfect opportunity for the government to act on these concerns. Instead, it seems to have put it in the too-hard basket and left local councils to withstand the worst of community angst and anger. I must then ask the government what it is willing to do to put this right. In the larger scheme of things, what is it willing to do to stop the issue of AI data centres completely skewing next month's council elections? These are the councils that are faced with AI factory development applications with almost no room to move.

In the case of Latrobe Council, the posted election will be occurring in the same month that the council will have to make its decision on the Wesley Vale site, unless of course the minister agrees to its Major Project request. Can you begin to imagine the harm an angry populist majority council might bring to Latrobe and any of the other councils that have been faced with AI factory development applications? Yes, minister Ellis has just released draft expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure developments. It is by no means an authoritative on final policy as it comes with a consultation period that's open until 12 October. What does surprise me is that it appears to be a series of aspirational motherhood statements appealing to the goodwill of all involved.

The suggestion that the Office of the Coordinator General (OCG) as the central point for proponents to engage with the government is of concern, as we all are too aware of the recent controversy over the objectivity the Coordinator-General's 3000-word opinion piece in support of the stadium, a piece that turned out to be a codependent group project. Perhaps the stipulation that proponents go through the OCG is a way for the government or its ministers to be seen to keep their hands clean in what has become an increasingly muddy and divisive policy muddle.

The draft expectations make no mention of Major Projects or Projects of State Significance planning processes as an objective framework with which to fully assess the broader impact of data centres and AI infrastructure developments. Instead, it states - this is of concern:

Existing pathways provide mechanisms to assess and manage potential impacts, including through permit conditions and other statutory or commercial requirements where appropriate.

That statement alone is an astonishing abandonment of leadership and accountability. The draft expectations are a furphy, a damp squib of a flash bang that's gone 'phut!' as a distraction to absorb the time and energy of an already hypervigilant community. It is simply too little too late, and the minister is trying to shut the stable door long after the Firmus horse has bolted across the finish line with its various development applications signed, sealed and delivered. LUPAA ensures local councils are having to act as a planning authority with almost zero scope to challenge, or even refuse or refer a development with statewide implications. The minister's expectations do nothing to support them.

In the meantime, Tasmanian communities are watching the AI policy machinations with keen interest, with an incredulous stance as we are being drip-fed the latest updates that further complicate what should be a rational evaluation. I must put it on the record that I'm not against AI factories and where AI is going, but what I am against is the lack of capacity for councils to fully, adequately deal with those and have a process outlined clearly how that impacts on the piece of legislation we have in front of us.

It's as if the government has a jigsaw puzzle in mind where it cannot see the final picture, so it's making up random pieces as it goes along. Each piece is placed on the board with a bit of spin and some fine words, and then the government retreats to the higher ground, leaving our community none the wiser as we try to work out exactly what is going on.

The latest piece to pop up in the puzzle is, after all the talk of a deal being done between Firmus and Hydro, it now turns out that Hydro has yet to make a final decision on supplying Firmus with its requested 450 megawatts of power, and it will do so at some point by the end

of the year. To quote Nessa from Gavin & Stacey: 'Oh, what's occurring?' We were under the impression that all was good and Firmus has a deal to pay full price. 'Tidy,' we all thought. Yet now we are in a situation where, who knows?

Is Hydro waiting to see what the latest subsidy deal can come out of Canberra and Hobart for the Rio Tinto Bell Bay Aluminium contract? Or is it playing one off against the other on the pretext of what's best for them and best to pay a huge dividend to the government to pay off the stadium and its other huge debts? If we add in Project Marinus, the North West Transmission Developments and the various wind farm projects that are apparently ready to be built, are we in a situation where it's who bleeds first loses in a codependent tower of cards - and the Tasmanian community has to pick up the pieces and pay the bill, with all the profits heading out of Tasmania?

As another new puzzle piece; we have the newly established Inquiry into AI Data Centres in Tasmania as a committee of inquiry in the other place. Until the government has a clear picture of what a Tasmanian AI data centre policy might look like, and one that has been considered and agreed by all sides, are we in a position to legislate on anything relating to AI infrastructure?

Clause 10 and its new exceptions to the definition of 'subdivide' is just such an issue and should be held in abeyance until we can see the full picture. The government must revisit the protocols around Major Projects and Projects of State Significance as they are additional pieces of the puzzle that have been swept off the board when it comes to considering the impact of AI data centres. We were hoping to see them addressed in the government's highly anticipated statement of expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure developers. Sadly, it's very much a disappointing and inconclusive ramble around the subject. For a community that is looking for leadership from above, it is our councils who are carrying the load that's been dumped on them by the Tasmanian government. It is abdication of responsibility dressed up as 'She'll be right' as apparently the current process is fit for purpose. There is a perfect opportunity for the government and its minister to step up and deliver true leadership on AI data centres, rather than scurry around the edges gnawing an incomplete jigsaw.

As I've already said, there are growing demands for a complete overhaul of our planning laws, and an ever-increasing number of people in our community, despite our natural goodwill, are having to question the government's choices and actions in this space. The government is losing the trust of a large section of our community and councils as they pull together the random puzzle pieces and attempt to make sense of the government's policy silence. It is a problem the government must recognise and act on.

An equitable and fully transparent planning act that takes account of local concerns is an essential part of restoring that sense of community trust. Our planning legislation must be relevant, up to date and fit for purpose. It is the government's responsibility to start with that in mind - and not to tinker around the edges and plaster up the cracks with yet another amendment bill.

I understand there are several possible amendments to other clauses we're yet to consider, but I'll let those honourable members expand on those in greater depth, which have the potential to give stronger boundaries to strengthen this bill's function and scope. I'd like to think the government can fully support them and recognise the community input and the goodwill in which they are offered. I look forward to the debate to come.