Housing Land Supply (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2026 (No 15)
Thursday 10 September 2026
[12.09 p.m.]
Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President. I thank the honourable minister as well for bringing this forward and for the briefings that we've had. It was really good to have so many briefings, just to clear up different issues. The bill contains a number of technical amendments which could have wider implications for local planning bodies and councils, and does seek, in my opinion, to vest additional powers into the minister.
The objective of the bill is to shorten the amount of time it takes for the release of land for the purposes of constructing public and affordable housing. We're all aware of the need for timely release of land for housing construction projects, and we should be minimising any delay for this. These have been referred to as efficiencies. The release of land is one of those many factors that feed into the time it takes for housing to be built, and we do need it now more than ever.
I note the minister's comments that the bill seeks to reduce unnecessary administrative tasks and that currently the process requires that the five‑sitting‑day disallowance period must be completed in both Houses of Parliament before a housing land supply order can be made. Further noting that since 2018 there have been seven times when an order has been ready to be made, but a period of up to three months have sometimes resulted in a delay, such as over the summer period. To this end, the bill proposes to move the disallowance period to after the making of an order, therefore treating it as if it were a regulation under the Acts Interpretation Act 1931.
Additionally, I note that a total of 18 housing land supply orders have been made with scrutiny by the parliament, with no disallowance motions put forward. I understand this, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option, if a member of parliament feels it's needed ‑ and I do note the amendment, and I will mention that shortly. We all know that once power is handed over to the executive, it's very difficult to get it back.
Questions this bill raises for me are whether this bill will actually achieve the goal of quickly releasing land for the purposes of housing construction, whether this vests too much power in the minister, whether local planning authorities are being bypassed and power is being taken away from our communities to have a say what actually gets built in their localities, and how difficult this legislation would be to undo, if it's found to provide too much power for the minister.
While I thank the minister's office for providing information on an amendment which they intend to move relating to the disallowance provision, I note the email distributed to members advises this amendment rolls back the proposed change to the disallowance provisions in the act, but adds the provision for a positive motion to be tabled and debated in both Houses which, if passed, enacts the order, rather than it waiting the disallowance period. The intention is to provide a practical middle ground by creating an alternative pathway when an order is required urgently or during periods when parliament is not sitting. I believe this is an improvement, and does provide some certainty for the bill, and I thank the government for taking seriously the concerns that have been raised. There will be some questions about it and how it operates in practice, but at this stage we will consider what other members' views on the amendment might be.
Regarding submissions, I have consulted a number of the submissions made on this bill and just found the following relevant, and important to note. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Murchison, the City of Launceston did put in quite a detailed submission. Launceston Council welcomed a streamlining process, but they noted their critical function as partners in delivering the release of land and the delivery of housing, stating councils administer local planning schemes, deliver infrastructure and ensure proposals align with the Tasmanian Planning Policies, regional land use strategies, and the resource management and planning system on a whole. This local knowledge provides essential insight into infrastructure capacity, servicing constraints and local conditions. Early collaboration is therefore key to achieving well integrated, high-quality outcomes. The City of Launceston made a number of recommendations, including the ongoing engagement with local councils, supported technical amendments contained in this bill, and recommended that housing land supply orders are prepared in alignment with existing or emerging structure plans to ensure land release occurs within a coordinated, strategically informed framework. They also mentioned, and it says:
Council notes that the exhibition period remains the sole formal opportunity for local government input under section 12(1) of the Housing Land Supply Act. This period is just 28 days, excluding any days on which the Council office is closed during normal business hours, such as public holidays. Given the potential complexity of proposals, particularly where servicing transport, infrastructure provision, or developing sequencing issues arise, this limited timeframe further emphasises the importance of early engagement. [TBC]
None of this appears to be mandated or required in the bill, so I would like to know how the government and the minister will ensure that these recommendations are adhered to, should this bill pass, particularly with regard to early engagement with councils.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission advises that it 'understands the aims of the draft bill' and had very few comments to make on the draft bill, whereas Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania did not support the bill, for the following reasons:
(1) They believe it increases ministerial power over the planning system;
(2) The lack of parliamentary scrutiny undermines the integrity of the planning rezone process as a Housing Land Supply Order can be implemented before the parliament has given its approval.
(3) The lack of parliamentary scrutiny undermines democratic scrutiny, reduces the community voice, makes it difficult to reverse the decision, and risks inappropriate land use.
(4) Public land can be used for market rate housing rather than for the people who need it most.
(5) The success to date of delivery of social and affordable housing via the Housing Land Supply Order processes are unclear.
(6) Rezoning must follow the standard and existing thorough strategic planning procedures rather than being fast tracked.
(7) Fast tracked land rezoning can have many negative consequences.
Mr President, I would appreciate the minister's response regarding the concerns of PMAT. It's worth putting it on the record, particularly some of the submissions, and I acknowledge that we actually received a document which gave some comments from the submissions, but obviously they're not on the public records. It's worth having it in one spot where people can actually read it.
Mr President, the Devonport City Council also provided a detailed submission supporting the stated aim of the bill to improve the efficiency of the process set out in the Housing Land Supply Act and further recognise the demand for affordable and social housing is more acute now that when the Housing Land Supply Act was introduced in 2018. The Devonport City Council provided an additional recommendation that the draft bill be expanded to provide for S5 of the Housing Land Supply Act to be applied to eligible local government land which would allow for local government land to also contribute to the accelerated supply of land for housing under the Housing Land Supply Act process. I note there were some comments in the literature supplied to us about why that wasn't supported, and perhaps that could be mentioned in the response, minister, so that anyone reading it has an understanding of what the response is, rather than having to try to seek out the information that we've had sent to us.
Homes Tasmania understandably supported the bill, specifically the intent to reduce delays in bringing forward affordable and social housing, reducing administrative burdens regarding the making of orders and clarifying alignment with state planning provisions. It further recommended, like the Devonport City Council, to consider expansion to local government land, streamlining processes for existing orders, clarifying eligibility for alternate zoning and incorporating subdivision approval in conjunction with rezoning provisions.
The Council of the Ageing provided an important and interesting submission emphasising the fact that Tasmania has the oldest age profile in Australia, and this cohort of people aged 65 plus would continue to grow in the coming years. The inevitable consequence of this COTA states will be a growing number of households will need homes that support ageing - step free access, safe bathrooms, proximity to services, public transport, walkable streets and community connections, not simply more dwellings in anyone location. On reading that, I don't know about the member for McIntyre, but I don't think my house at the moment meets any of those conditions, so I might need to be looking for something along those lines myself as we get older. Certainly not step free, I have three flights.
Ms Rattray - You could actually just live on one level, you'd be fine. You have plenty.
Ms ARMITAGE - Well, I do you like to access all amenities, that's the only thing.
Ms Forrest - Better than roughing it.
Ms ARMITAGE - Yes. COTA also highlights the growing rental stress amongst older Australians. Overall, COTA supports the notion of streamlining processes to accelerate housing supply and faster delivery of social and affordable housing but emphasises that speed should not reduce genuine opportunities for community input. That really the important one. Exclude people who are not digitally connected or lead to housing outcomes that are not appropriate for older people.
It would be interesting, minister, if you just could explain. In the past when sometimes opportunities have come for people - I think it might have been the flood - when they were giving out flood resources and flood money. We had people coming into my office that weren't digitally connected, didn't have an e-mail. Some of the things they had to do, they actually had to have emails to do it. I particularly remember one elderly gentleman, who might have been in his early 90s or late 80s, and of course, we created an e-mail address for him and did things for him. But he knew to come into our office. But I wondered about people that actually don't have those resources and don't know who to go to because everything seems to be digital now, and I'm just wondering about people that don't have the ability.
I can remember with the latest one in Launceston, the Kings Meadows and the Youngtown development, I had a lady that lived at Youngtown who was extremely concerned about some of the land behind her that was being redeveloped. I had many visits to her to try to relay her concerns and help her put in the concerns that she had because she had no understanding or no idea of how to do it. I'm just wondering about people that don't know to contact us that get these letters or get the information provided to them but realistically are not digitally able; they don't have mobile phones, they don't have a smartphone, they don't have a computer or they don't have an email address. I think sometimes that does leave these people at a disadvantage and quite concerned. I know the lady at Youngtown was extremely worried about what was happening behind her and I visited her on several occasions to try to get information and just to help her. She knew to contact us, but I wonder about the others that don't. Whether the minister can advise whether everything basically is digital or how you look at informing some people that really have no idea of what to do and do get really worried and concerned.
TasWater and DECYP - I noticed they did not provide any comment on the bill.
Heritage Tasmania provided a submission on the bill, noting the bill's objective to improve government administrative efficiency and streamline the rezoning of eligible government land to support timely delivery of social and affordable housing by Homes Tasmania. They emphasise that the compression of timeframes may pose constraints for the Heritage Council where land proposed for housing land supply order includes a place entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and the proposed order contains complex specific area plans (SAP) or site specific qualification (SSQ) provisions involving protection of a heritage place's setting, management of archaeological potential or management of other aspects of cultural heritage significance.
They further noted that under the draft bill, the Heritage Council's only opportunity to comment on the proposed order is during the public consultation period, which is, in practice, a 28-day exhibition. They noted that this may be insufficient for the Heritage Council to prepare submissions containing complex SAP or SSQ provisions, especially where external specialist heritage advice is required or other exceptional circumstances. They therefore recommend a provision that enables the minister to accept submissions beyond that 28‑day period where reasonably necessary. So, if the minister could also please provide a response to this, it would be really appreciated to see if there is an opportunity in those circumstances because we all know how important our heritage is. I think it was mentioned, by it might've been the member for Hobart, yesterday about Launceston and the amount of heritage that we actually have in ‑
Ms O'Connor - Such a beautiful city.
Ms ARMITAGE - Yeah - in the north of the state.
Ms O'Connor - I wouldn't want to live there again necessarily, but it is a beautiful city.
Ms ARMITAGE - You really shouldn't encourage - I have been encouraged, Mr President, it was the member for Hobart who mentioned it yesterday.
Mr PRESIDENT - Yes.
Ms Forrest - Just watch, you'll dig a hole if you're not careful. Don't provoke a quarrel with the member for Launceston.
Ms ARMITAGE - Not a quarrel; I'm agreeing. I'm sure everyone realises the amount of heritage we have, but I think heritage is important and it's worth addressing the concerns of the Heritage Council, if the minister could in his response.
I also note that the Property Council of Australia supports the bill, stating in their submission that they acknowledge the role that the Housing Land Supply Act has had in attempting to introduce additional land to the market and drive down costs. This process aimed at speeding up the development of eligible government land for affordable and social housing is laudable because it does speed up land development for much‑needed housing. They further stated:
While [the Housing Lands Supply Orders Act's] effectiveness to date has been marginal, the [Property Council] believes that the proposed changes in the Bill will assist in expediting a pipeline of housing.
While this bill raises some questions for me, I understand the important issues the bill is trying to address. We do need more social and affordable housing, and we need it quickly; however, we all know that capability and capacity to construct public and affordable housing goes far beyond just approval processes and extends right down the chain to tendering, finding suppliers, contractors and builders to commence construction and other legal and practical processes. This is one part of a very large scheme, and I entirely agree that we should not be standing in the way of approvals. I just question whether or not this is the best, most efficacious way to do it, and I wonder what risks it might present down the track. I'm wary of anything which hands over too much power to the minister, and that's certainly nothing against this minister. I think you're doing an absolutely fabulous job, and I think that I haven't heard anything bad from anyone. I think everyone accepts that you really are doing a great job here, minister. I'm not trying to pump your tyres up, but I just think it's -
A member - But you have.
Ms ARMITAGE - No, I think it's only fair too -
Mr Vincent - I will accept it.
Ms O'Connor - I think he needs it.
Ms ARMITAGE - Everyone's always ready to criticise and it's only fair to actually say when things are good.
Mr GAFFNEY - Is it his birthday as well?
Ms ARMITAGE - I've lost my spot now. I have to start that sentence again now. As I said, I'm aware of handing anything -
Mr Vincent - Go back to the start and start again.
Ms ARMITAGE - Go back to the very start. I won't go over an hour, but that's alright.
Mr Vincent - No, just the compliments.
Ms ARMITAGE - As I said, I am wary of anything which hands over too much power to the minister and potentially takes existing planning processes out of the hands of planning authorities and communities. I do look forward to hearing from other members on their view. I've been involved in council for a good number of years prior to coming to this place. I'm always a bit wary - almost like when government says 'trust me' - but I'm happy to listen to other members.
