Greg Barns piece published in the Mercury – Some disturbing developments for democracy (3/3/2025).

Housing is a human right. And so is the right to work, to be healthy and to live with dignity. That is why planning and development of our land is so critical. We know the consequences of poor decisions that lead to urban wastelands, poorly built density housing and a lack of green space. 

The dilemma of design and amenity is as important in Tasmania as anywhere else in the world. And that is why the Rockliff government’s recent announcements in this area, accompanied by the usual overblown rhetoric from the relevant minister Felix Ellis are so critical. 

The Rockliff government failed last year to push through reforms that would allow developers to bypass local government in order to get approval for their projects.

Undaunted Mr Ellis is trying again and has released a draft bill and discussion paper for public comment. He has, however, also announced that appeal rights are going ot be abolished or curtailed for objectors to developments.

The alternative to council permission takes the form of what are known as Development Assessment Panels, or DAPs. This is now a novel approach, Western Australia has had them for over a decade.

Under the new bill social housing projects, or larger scale developments over at least $1m can be determined by a DAP. But so can, among other things, projects “considered to be of significance to the local area or state”. 

Perhaps more disturbingly, but consistent with the DAP theme, is the announcement by Mr Ellis last month that the “Government will introduce legislation that only allows a person aggrieved by a planning decision to lodge an appeal to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.” This is because, the Minister say, “too many projects had been held up in Tasmania because of people who relentlessly oppose sensible, appropriate developments for the sake of stalling progress.” Hyperbole and Trumpian in its cavalier treatment of the facts.

As the Mercury’s David Killick observed on February 7 when reporting Mr Ellis’s announcement, about, “1 per cent of development applications are subject to appeal and 80 per cent of those are resolved by mediation, government figures shows.” Further, Mr Killick notes the “change announced by Mr Ellis is expected to affect up to five of more than 5000 development applications lodged in the state each year.” See what is meant by Trumpian.

Underpinning the DAP proposal and the curtailment of appeal rights is the undermining of democracy. And there is also the fact that given Tasmania’s appalling propensity for conflicts of interest and weak political donation laws, the risk of undue influence, to put it mildly, cannot be ruled out.

As Sophie Underwood, from Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania, a lobby group, recently observed, the proposals of Mr Ellis have to be seen again “a backdrop of property developers still being able to donate to political parties in Tasmania (unline ACT, QLD and NSW), as well as Tasmania having one of the weakest anti-corruption watchdogs in Australia, and Tasmania being the most secretive government in Australia.”

In fact in 2012, the NSW anti-corruption body ICAC “identified six key anti-corruption safeguards to help minimise corruption in the NSW planning system. The safeguards include providing certainty, balancing competing public interests, ensuring transparency, reducing complexity, meaningful community participation and consultation, and expanding the scope of third party merit appeals.”

The superficial attraction of Mr Ellis’s proposals are self evident. There is a housing crisis in Tasmania. There are also scandalously, vacant blocks and large scale semi industrial sites close to the downtown and in the inner northern suburbs. It is imperative that these spaces can be used for well designed housing and community spaces. 

However, the way to proceed is not that outlined by Mr Ellis. A bit like Elon Musk’s cost cutting efforts in the US. The size of  government should be reduced in that debt laden nation but not by the sort of scatter gun politically driven approach Tesla founder.

There is the issue of the bourgeoisie opposing social housing in their areas and some particularly egregious examples of that in this state. Government should prevent that from happening. Mechanisms need to be in place to stop self-interested property value obsessed and snobbish local and placing roadblocks in the way of human rights. But is the DAP process the way to achieve that aim? Perhaps if it is completely transparent – a foreign concept in Tasmania. 

As for local government’s role and the rights of concerned parties to appeal planning decisions these features often lead to better design outcomes. Furthermore given we are talking about the shape and culture of communities it is right that there be an injection of democracy into projects that will materially impact on a place. 

Good design and democratic rights are not mutually exclusive. Planning is a sophisticated area of policy. Maybe that has not dawned on the populist Mr Ellis.

Hobart barrister Greg Barns, a human rights lawyer, has advised state and federal liberal governments.