Insiders from Tasmania's parks department have slammed the State Government's Major Projects Bill.

Tasmania’s Major Projects Bill seeks to allow the Government to declare large and complex developments as requiring special attention, so that they are assessed by a special panel rather than a local council.

It is meant to make thing easier when a project crosses the borders of several councils, for example.

But opponents say the legislation would restrict appeal rights and dramatically reduce community consultation.

They also argue that the criteria for declaring a project ‘major’ are so broad that almost anything could fit within them.

The criteria include a project having an impact on an area's environment, economy or social fabric, being of strategic importance to a region, or being significant scale or complexity.

The Government says the changes are necessary for the state's COVID-19 recovery, and has gained the support of the opposition to pass them.

But revelations this week suggest government staff have been left out of the loop

Leaked emails allegedly show a manager within the policy branch of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment asking a colleague; “What, if any advice, previously provided by the department has been incorporated into this Bill?”

He went on to say a draft copy of the legislation appeared “overly administratively complex”.

“There is no clear demonstration that the Bill will actually provide any efficiencies over the current legislative framework.”

The person also said the department had not been consulted on the laws since 2017.

Still, Planning Minister Roger Jaensch insists it is “vitally important legislation”.

“It will provide a contemporary, independent assessment framework for development proposals of significant scale, complexity and strategic importance, providing clarity and certainty for investors and the community while complementing Tasmania's other planning assessment and approvals processes,” Mr Jaensch said in a statement this week.

“And as we have consistently said, there are no fast-tracks, short-cuts or easy routes, and any suggestion it will be used to bypass normal processes to approve controversial projects is simply wrong.”