Debate resumed from 2 June 2009.

Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.32 p.m.]: The Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is a bill for an Act to amend the Heritage Act 1977 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with respect to the Heritage Council of New South Wales, State heritage items and other items of heritage significance, and for other purposes. The objects of the bill are to insert objects into the Heritage Act; to require criteria used by the Heritage Council to determine whether a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct—that is an item—is of State heritage significance to be approved by the Minister for Planning; to reduce the membership of the Heritage Council from a maximum of 15 members to a maximum of 11; and to remove the appointment of members nominated by particular organisations other than the National Trust of Australia, New South Wales.

Further objects are to require the Minister, when considering the inclusion on or removal of an item from the State Heritage Register, to consider whether the item should be conserved and other specified effects of the listing; to provide for the endorsement by the Heritage Council of conservation management plans for items listed on the State Heritage Register and other matters related to those plans; to enable the Minister or chairperson of the Heritage Council to make stop-work orders to prevent an item that is subject to an interim heritage order or is listed on the State Heritage Register from being harmed; to provide for the referral by councils of disputed proposals to list items as heritage items in local environmental plans to independent hearing and assessment panels; to prevent a consent authority from refusing a development application for integrated development on heritage grounds if the development is the subject of a relevant approval under the Heritage Act; and to make other minor amendments and amendments of a consequential, savings or transitional nature.

I also represent an area that has significant heritage within it. Each and every member of this House would have similar views. I have spoken before about some local areas of great importance. I remind the House that the Mount Errington area is one particularly significant precinct. There are a number of others and also a number of individual heritage items. I pay tribute to the historical societies and individuals who take a great interest in the area's heritage and history. I mention particularly the members of the Hornsby Historical Society, the Dural and District Historical Society, and the Dangar Island Historical Society. I am a member of all those societies. I attend their meetings as often as possible and take a great interest in their work.

As I said, the Hornsby area has many wonderful heritage sites. I have spoken to a number of people in my electorate—most recently to Elizabeth Roberts, who consulted with Mari Metzke—and I have some feedback for the Minister about the concerns of the Royal Australian Historical Society regarding the bill. The Royal Australian Historical Society met recently to discuss the amendments. It stated that there are significant amendments in the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 that is currently before State Parliament—and obviously we do not disagree—and that the changes proposed threaten the role of history and archaeology in heritage, and dilute statutory protection of heritage in a variety of ways. Matters of special concern to the historical community are set out as:

1. For the first time there will be no requirement that a historian is a member of the Heritage Council. For the past 32 years the RAHS has nominated, on behalf of the profession, a panel of three historians from whom the Minister has appointed one to the Heritage Council. The Expert Panel which reported to the government on the Heritage Act at the end of 2007 recommended that experts in each of six defined categories, including history, should be members of the reformed Heritage Council, whether it remained with fifteen members or, as is now proposed, be reduced to eleven. The current amendment instead provides for six members, with "qualifications, knowledge and skills" in any of fifteen stipulated areas, to be appointed by the Minister. Although one of these fifteen areas is "New South Wales or Australian history", there is no provision for the RAHS or any other body to nominate a panel of suitable historians and, even more troubling, there is no guarantee that a historian will be appointed at all. The case for a historian is extremely strong. State listings are currently being considered under selected historical themes and present criteria for assessment are headed by historical and associational significance: there must be a historian on the Heritage Council.

2. There will be a shift of balance from the Heritage Council to the Minister. The criteria used for the assessment of heritage items will in future have to be approved by the Minister. There is a series of detailed, wide-ranging adjustments to the Minister's powers in listing and de-listing heritage items, in assessing the alleged economic impact of listing and in enhancing the role of property owners.

3. A change in the definition of archaeological "relics" is likely to mean that they will have less protection under the Act. This means that the definition of archaeological "relics" and pursuing protection under the Act would now be linked to the relic/s having heritage significance (either local or state). At this point in time the State Government and the Department of Planning does not have sufficient measures in place to identify where in NSW relics of local or state significance are likely to be found and hence provide adequate protection for those relics.

4. Heritage items listed on Local Environmental Plans will be subject to review, with powers over-riding those of the local government areas.

As members can see from the points raised, the historical and heritage communities—people who have a great interest in assisting this Government, or indeed any government and anyone else, in relation to our proud history—have huge concerns about the bill. We certainly do not want to see our heritage items—our rare and precious items, in many instances—disappear. Much has been lost. We do not want to see those items that should remain brushed aside by virtue of this legislation. Heritage is most important and needs its own Minister. The Government has not taken up the Opposition's proposition to appoint a separate Minister for Heritage, and it does little to address heritage listing through local government. I have outlined the concerns of many of my constituents and other Opposition members have raised similar concerns on behalf of their constituents. The Opposition opposes the bill. Heritage has a value that cannot be compromised.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.40 p.m.]: In my inaugural speech in this House I recognised the importance of protecting the best of the past in building for the future, and the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is very relevant to this aim. I will speak mainly in terms of the proposed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, but will first make some brief comments in relation to the heritage amendments. I note in particular the concerns as communicated to me a number of times by the History Council of New South Wales. Those concerns have been touched on, and they are twofold. First, it is imperative that an historian recognised by the sector is guaranteed a position on the Heritage Council; and, secondly, there is concern about the emphasis in the bill on considering during the heritage assessment process economic use and undue financial hardship to owners. I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns when she replies to the debate. There is also concern about a potential conflict of interest between planning and heritage matters. The shadow Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have outlined some real differences in terms of policy on this and other heritage matters.

I turn now to the planning reforms. Obviously the Coalition opposed the planning reforms of late 2008, which included the reforms in section 118AG of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I highlight particularly the appeal by Ku-ring-gai Council against the previous Minister's decision to appoint a planning panel to the Ku-ring-gai area. That appeal, although not entirely successful, was available under a democratic system. Now there is protection of the appointment of planning assessment panels and the conferral of functions on regional panels under the Act that did not exist previously under section 118AG. I will be happy to hear the Minister's comments on that issue in her reply. There is concern that that protection would extend to the Minister in conferring functions or appointing panels with authority for development control plans and contribution plans. As a result that protection, which has been extended, would be extended even further. That is of concern to Ku-ring-gai Council and to me. At this point I acknowledge the presence of Councillor Tony Hall from Ku-ring-gai Council in the public gallery.

I have written to the Minister requesting that she meet with the Leader of the Opposition and me to discuss broader issues involving Ku-ring-gai Council and the planning panel. I will not stray into matters that are outside the leave of the bill; but will make a private member's statement about related issues on Friday. I note that the Minister has shown good faith in the past in visiting the area and attending meetings, so I ask that she extend that good faith and meet us prior to finalisation of the planning panel matters that are before her for consideration. Ku-ring-gai is topical at the moment. I note the real concerns in Ku-ring-gai about the planning panel and the meeting that was held last week—not just the outcomes but also the process engaged in at the meeting, when the planning panel considered the final local environmental plan. Rather than use my own words, I will quote the Mayor of Ku-ring-gai, Councillor Malicki—who is far from being a Coalition supporter. She labelled last week's Ku-ring-gai planning panel meeting that approved the town centre's plan a "farce", and said that up to 1,000 concerned residents were provoked into anger by the panel members' "total and utter lack of respect". She stated:

In almost 20 years as a councillor, I have never seen such a chaotic and out-of-control meeting as this one—and the blame lies squarely with the panel.

Regrettably the way the panel conducted the meeting sparked a tidal wave of anger, with residents resorting to yelling and verbal abuse out of sheer frustration.

This sort of behaviour has never been witnessed at our council meetings, so this gives an indication at the depth of anger at this panel and its decisions.

My concern is that we are now handing additional powers to this panel and other like panels in terms of development control plans and contribution plans when the processes followed are less than democratic. I will not go into great detail on the content of the meeting; I am happy to do so with the Minister in private. Suffice to say there are serious concerns that democracy is being further eroded in Ku-ring-gai and in other councils across this State and that the proposals before us in this bill will only add to that situation.

I extend my comments about the flawed process overseen by the planning panel to highlight certain heritage and conservation matters that are especially evident in east Roseville. The Leader of the Opposition referred to east Roseville and some particular cases. I note that at the meeting last week the National Trust spokesperson made it clear that of the 20 areas identified by the National Trust, east Roseville is considered the second most important. Yet vast areas are not protected in the plan while some anomaly houses with questionable heritage value seem to have been singled out. I have highlighted some of the concerns of my local community and I look forward to discussing them further with the Minister for Planning and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [12.47 p.m.]: The purpose of the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Heritage Act 1977 following the review and recommendations of an expert panel chaired by Gabrielle Kibble, with unrelated amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act; and to broaden the powers of the appointed planning panel to determine development control plans in addition to local environmental plans. I raise a number of concerns in my area of Tweed. I am led to believe that one or two submissions came from the Tweed but they were not made public. I am a great believer in transparency and openness within all three tiers of government, and I wonder why all submissions were not made public.

I have been in Parliament for only a short time, but it seems pretty dumb to me that a committee would not release all the submissions it received. The bill specifies the criteria according to which the Minister can list items on and remove items from the State Heritage Register. That has the potential for conflict of interest, as articulated by the member for Davidson. Development is always a difficult issue, particularly in my electorate of Tweed, where we are obviously trying to balance the massively growing population with the expectations of local residents.

The amendments fail to address many of the concerns expressed in the submissions to the heritage review, and they also fail to establish a framework for local government heritage listings. I am deeply concerned about the fact that the amendments ramp up the powers of the joint regional planning panels that were recently put in place. I believe the Minister addressed the Shires Association meeting held this morning. It was intended to pass a motion that the local shires associations would not nominate anyone for membership of the joint regional planning panels. I am not sure whether the motion has been moved yet, but I was informed yesterday that that was the intention. That is probably not what one would deem as a great show of support for their involvement.

Ms Kristina Keneally: They were very happy with my speech.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The Minister informs me that they were very happy with her speech. Undoubtedly they were. The Minister is extremely articulate on many occasions.

Ms Kristina Keneally: And I gave them very good news.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: The Minister says she gave the shires very good news. They were seeking a lot of good news. The local shires associations, particularly in the north of the State, continue to have issues with planning and so on. I am also concerned about the fact that there is no historian on the joint regional planning panels, particularly in the Tweed area. The Tweed has many historical sites, both indigenous and European, particularly from the early logging days, and those sites deserve to be protected. We can learn so much from history. I support the Opposition's view that we should have a separate heritage Minister—a person who has a good knowledge and understanding of heritage issues. We can learn a lot from our historical background, and that is why it needs to be preserved and valued. Our historical background is very valuable indeed.

However, the downside of the bill is that it significantly increases the powers of joint regional planning panels. As I have said, joint regional planning panels are fairly contentious. I am aware that a number of councils and shires associations believe that this latest move effectively removes them from the planning process. Just today I attended a meeting with Minister Ian Macdonald to discuss how the World Rally Championship is to be conducted in the Tweed. The Minister indicated that new legislation would soon be introduced in this place to effectively remove the power of local government. Local government is an important institution, and it should be supported. Local government plays an important role in establishing public opinion on issues, both for and against. It also plays an important role in protecting a number of our historical buildings and sites.

I believe I have articulated some of the Opposition's concerns about the legislation. We are particularly concerned about the ramping up of the powers of joint regional planning panels. It seems that the Government wants continually to ramp up the panels' powers whilst at the same time diminishing the powers of local government that determine people's way of life, as well as diminishing the transparency of local government. I hope the Minister will address those concerns when she replies to the debate. I am sure that she will do so—and I am sure she will do it in an articulate fashion, as she always does. Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [12.53 p.m.]: The Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is, as the Leader of the Opposition remarked yesterday, a Trojan horse. It purports to deal with heritage matters—imperfectly, I might add—when its primary purpose is to further wrest control of planning issues away from councils. It does this by reducing the threshold at which the joint regional planning panels were to have authority, from developments worth $50 million to developments worth just $10 million. Serious concern has been expressed across New South Wales, and certainly in my local community, about the way in which the Government has sought, over a long period, to override the wishes of the local community with respect to planning matters.

I think back to State Environmental Planning Policy 53, which was introduced when Craig Knowles was planning Minister in the early years of this Government. Under that planning policy councils were forced to come up with an acceptable housing strategy—which is code for increased densities—or be stripped of their planning powers. Of course, the latter has come by stealth anyway. No consideration was given to neighbourhood character. My electorate of Castle Hill predominantly comprised freestanding houses—that was not just the predominant housing style; it was what people in the area wanted—but no consideration was given to the way the area looked. All councils had to meet the same targets. That included Baulkham Hills Shire Council—despite the fact that we had no railway line; we had no dedicated public transport.

In December 1998 the then Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, published the iniquitous document Action for Transport 2010, which promised a railway line to Castle Hill. This led to further blocks of flats, comprising hundreds of flats, being built around the Castle Hill central business district. At the time I said that I doubted whether the Government would ever build the railway line, and that my greatest fear was that the densities and all the traffic problems they would engender would be created without us ever getting the railway line we were promised. And so it has turned out to be.

But State Environmental Planning Policy 53 was flawed in other ways. Under the planning policy, Hornsby, which has eight railway stations, was allowed to reduce the densities it was already planning for in its housing strategy. It simply shows that the Government got State Environmental Planning Policy 53 seriously wrong. But the policy was very clever from a political standpoint. Councils copped the flak for rezoning blocks of flats and townhouses when it was the Government that was forcing them to do so. The Government stood remote from what was happening, and simply pointed the finger of blame at councils.

Now we have a similar situation. Not only will these joint regional planning panels be able to consider much smaller developments than before, but they will also be able to deal with not just local environmental plans but also development control plans and contribution plans. Effectively, councils will be emasculated. With many more developments becoming complying developments, and with private certification taking over much of the approval process, elected councillors will be reduced to considering what floats to put in the local festival and the establishment of off-leash dog areas. The Coalition believes these important changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act should have been considered in a separate bill—not disguised as part of a heritage bill, which they palpably have no connection with.

The Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is probably more notable for what it does not contain than for what it does. The Productivity Commission noted in its 2006 report that some historic heritage places have significance only locally, while for other places the scope is more general and extends to a State or Territory. For a few, the significance may extend nationally. That is certainly the case with Castle Hill Heritage Park, in my electorate. As members may be aware, the park is the site of the 4 March 1804 Castle Hill uprising—the only organised uprising by convicts in Australian history.

I am currently presenting to Parliament a petition that has been collected by Mr David Sommerlad and Mr Warren Bowden of the Heritage Park Management Committee to preserve the important vista from Old Northern Road to the Blue Mountains. It was always envisaged that Heritage Park would not be built on. That was certainly the case when the land, which had been owned by the Commonwealth Government, was handed over to the council more than 10 years ago. Heritage Park, which has arisen from that handover, is a great asset to my local area, and indeed to the State of New South Wales and the nation. As I have said before, the park is of national historical significance. It is from that vantage point at Rogans Hill that Governor Arthur Phillip first viewed the Blue Mountains, and therefore unquestionably it is something that needs to be preserved. The petition seeks a heritage order on the vista, and I understand an application has been made to the Minister in that regard. I ask the Minister to support the heritage order because it is enormously important not just for my community but also for the whole of the State.

The bill does not move forward the conservation of this vista at all, nor does it deal in any substantive way with the vexed issue of local government heritage listings. The Productivity Commission pointed to the cost borne by owners of heritage properties for the benefit of the rest of the community. It said:

Statutory listing involves applying added regulatory controls over private owners' use and enjoyment of their property. While there is scope in the legislation for governments to consider the cost consequences of this at the time of listing (and a few do), owners have no right to insist that this is done. Appeals are limited to issues of heritage significance and due process—namely, that specified procedures for notification and gazettal have been followed. As a result, many of the appeals on these grounds are a proxy for owner concerns with the cost consequences of statutory listing. Any cost consequences of listing are typically seen as part of the subsequent heritage management issue and primarily the responsibility of owners.

Of course, that leads to adverse consequences. The Productivity Commission continued:

for other private owners, the regulatory controls of statutory listing impose significant costs that would not otherwise be incurred. It is in these cases that problems arise, including hostility and resistance to listing, some reluctance to undertake the necessary conservation, sometimes leading to demolition by neglect—

I am sure the Minister is well aware of that issue—

and the generation of a high level of enforcement cost. As a result, heritage listing in this segment is often ineffective and inefficient as the vast majority of government and private conservation effort is expended to enforce a relatively small number of involuntary listings—not always the most important or significant, and often those for which the net community benefit is uncertain. In addition, this is inequitable as a way of funding the extra heritage benefits as the added costs are borne by the owner for wider community benefit.

An example of this is Mr Barry and Mrs Brenda Blackmore, who live in an 1860s heritage-listed property in Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford. They want to put two ensuite bathrooms in the upper storey, but they believe to do so would require the construction of two dormer windows at the rear of the property in the same style as the original dormer window at the front of the property. The development application of Mr and Mrs Blackmore was rejected last year by council's forward planning committee on the grounds that:

the proposed 3 metre wide eyelid dormer windows will have an adverse impact on the significance of the heritage item since it will irreversibly alter the largely intact, original line and detailing of the rear part of the roof.

I made representations to council on behalf of Mr and Mrs Blackmore and the council's general manager upheld the ruling. Yet the original slate roof on this property has long since gone, and has been replaced with concrete tiles that have lost their glaze. The rear part of the roof, where the dormer windows are proposed to be located, cannot be seen from the road. While the house is heritage listed, the historical society had no previous knowledge of it until I brought it to their attention.

The New South Wales Government allowed dozens of ensuite bathrooms to be built in the Manly Quarantine Station—which is of significantly more historical importance than this particular house in Pennant Hills Road—so that it could be used as a hotel and a resort. I do not think there are too many examples anywhere in the world of ensuite bathrooms in private hospital rooms in the mid nineteenth century. I would be among the first to put my hand up to preserve the heritage of our area—too much of it has been destroyed in the past, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s. However, this is an example of the system failing. The Blackmores are elderly. I understand they want to sell their house, which is too big for them, but their inability to install ensuites because of heritage considerations is costing them dearly. It may well be that their house will ultimately fall into disrepair through neglect because of the refusal of council to allow these additions.

I wonder why the Government has introduced a bill that on the one hand strips councils of more of their planning powers, yet on the other hand squibs the difficult issue of ensuring that the owners of heritage-listed properties are not financially disadvantaged. Part of the problem is that heritage items now seem to be a minor function of the Department of Planning. The previous Minister removed the stand-alone status of the Heritage Office. Contrast that with the policy of the Coalition to have a stand-alone Minister for Heritage—which is sorely needed!

One only has to compare the way in which Parks Victoria manages European heritage items with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to see just how little this Government values the 221 years of European settlement in New South Wales. For instance, Parks Victoria looks after the historic 1895 Coolart Homestead and bird sanctuary on the Mornington Peninsula, which I have visited, as well as the massive gold dredge at Eldorado near Beechworth. That dredge, built in the 1950s, is absolutely enormous; hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested to refloat it. The dredge is rare—there are only about three of them in the world—and is so big that when the electricity was turned on to power it, the lights went dim in the nearby town. Compare that to Boyd's Tower near Eden, a five-storey whale-spotting tower built by Ben Boyd in 1846. But it might just as well be an industrial chimney for the impact it has these days.

Boyd's Tower could, and in my view should, be restored so that visitors could, perhaps for a small fee, climb it to look out across Twofold Bay to spot whales as the old whalers did. It would be a significant tourist attraction for the area but because of the neglect of the National Parks and Wildlife Service the purpose of the tower is entirely missed. I understand that the Department of Planning in Victoria administers many of the heritage functions of that State. However, last year the Victorian Government strengthened its heritage protection through legislation and Parks Victoria, which understands the importance of conserving our past, protects many of the State's buildings. Mr Ian Nowland of the Hills District Historical Society, of which I am proud to be a patron, put in a submission to the Government about the review of the Heritage Act—the Hills District Historical Society is one of the few historical societies to do so. Mr Nowland said:

there are a number of items in this proposed legislation which ring a familiar bell, especially regarding the concerns of owners of heritage properties and those where a listing is likely or under consideration. I have much sympathy for these people as they see their properties as being under stress with likely loss of value. I do however have a cutting from the Hills Shire Times dated 23 March 2004 which reported the Council deleted four new proposed local listings because the owners objected. They did so without any regard to the facts: It was purely a face-saving device, as they did not want to get the owners offside. So there must be a fairer and more balanced way of doing so—

that is listing properties—

and while I sympathise with such owners they can't always have it their own way.

He continued:

I also believe Councils are rather inflexible in their dealings with heritage homes/properties in that they object strongly to any external alterations even when they seem to be minor and unnecessary for the comfort of the owner. The difficulty is how you legislate, because some councils might just as easily open the floodgates if given an inch in this regard. Flexibility is the key word and they should accept the word of experts in this field before reaching decisions.

It is the suggestion of Mr Nowland that there should be some sort of an expert panel to review all cases in which councils consider a listed property may be demolished. He said this would introduce expert opinion into what usually would be a highly charged situation for both the owner and council. He noted that appeals to the likes of the Land and Environment Court are too costly and time consuming. He added:

As the Heritage Council is referred to in the legislation, why not put the weights on the Heritage Council to determine all cases of proposed demolition, as is the case with State-listed properties.

This latter suggestion is eminently sensible and would provide an avenue of appeal for affected property owners such as Mr and Mrs Blackmore, as well as ensuring that properties that should be heritage listed are noted on local government heritage lists. The bill contains errors both of omission and commission but it is the second that is the more objectionable: the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. That is why the Opposition will vote against the bill.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [1.09 p.m.]: The object of the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Heritage Act 1977 following a review and recommendations of a so-called expert panel, which was chaired by Gabrielle Kibble and with unrelated amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that broaden the powers of appointed planning panels to determine development control plans in addition to local environmental plans. I place on record a problem that has arisen in my electorate.

The bill reduces the number of members of the Heritage Council from 15 to 11—I do not understand why the numbers were not decreased further. It enables the Minister or Chair of the Heritage Council to issue stop work orders on heritage items, it allows the Minister to remove items from the State Heritage Register, and it specifies the criteria the Minister has to consider when listing and delisting an item on the State Heritage Register. Whilst it is appropriate for the Heritage Council chair to have the power to stop-work orders on heritage items, I believe the chair also should have the power to speed up urgent repairs. I will put on record a letter I have received, which states:

The reason I have contacted your program is that my problem is the hypocrisy of State Government requirements and heritage legislation that has caused significant delay, inconvenience and is impinging not only on the fabric of my heritage listed home, but also the health of my family.

Upstairs walls and ceilings have become endowed with ever increasing amounts of mould all because of the lack of approval for my roof to be replaced in colourbond.

As the property is listed on the State heritage register (No 51), they are stipulating the roof needs to be replaced with galvanised iron. This is not seriously an option for the number of reasons provided in my draft Heritage Impact Statement.

This repair work is required as a result of major hailstorms in 2007. These people are still trying to get their house rectified. The letter continued:

The irony is that while my insurer is required to provide a heritage impact statement for replacement of the roof in colourbond:-

* State Government owned buildings in this region (both of local and State heritage significance) have not lodged DA's for replacement of their roofs from galvanised iron to colourbond. They have just gone ahead and replaced their rooves in painted colourbond.

* They have verbally told my husband over the phone that there is no way they will support an entire roof being replaced.

The house was hit by 2 Hail Storms in two consecutive days in November 007. Roof damage was not detected until several months after the storm period. Upon discovery of water leakage to the upstairs level of the home, I contacted the nominated assessor for their assistance. They were not able to get anyone to come out and provide a quote for repair as the roof is a 60% pitch and requires experts in the field and requires a major scaffolding operation. As months dragged on, I sought out a suitably qualified roofing company who came and performed an assessment. I was informed the entire roof required replacement as damage was extensive. As the quote was over a certain amount the NRMA said they required a second quote and sent down 'The Roofing Company' to also perform an assessment and provide a quote. Again, the recommendation was for the whole roof to be replaced. Recommendations were made that the roof should ideally be replaced in Colourbond as it was already painted and would reduce the need for additional scaffolding and interference with the overall integrity of the property.

NRMA have experienced apparent difficulty at engaging a heritage consultant to perform the report. I have provided my findings to both the Insurance assessor and to whom I believed to be the person engaged to complete the Heritage Impact Statement.

I have been patient and understand bureaucracy, but the straw that broke the camel's back was a complete rejection of funding assistance from heritage NSW in the newly announced 2009-2011 Grants Program.

I will not talk about the grant, which is a separate issue. The letter continued:

The moral of the story is this:- NSW Government has an Act of Parliament they do not follow and expect everyone else to do so. If I wish to attend to any alteration of the property (including getting my roof fixed) I am required to lodge a Development application. That costs money and time. The only assessment is from the regional heritage consultant whose opinion is subjective and not objective nor practical. This property was purchased in a state of significant state of disrepair as noted by the heritage advisor engaged by me to complete the Conservation plan of management.

Significant personal funds have been expended to restore the property, including roof maintenance, significant overgrowth clearing, replacement of subfloor joists and interior walls due to termite damage and water rot.

The list of works goes on. The letter continued:

Our Insurer NRMA claims they are doing their best, but if I didn't find a contractor to quote on the job and if I didn't do the research on the current state of play, I would be no closer to having my roof fixed. In the early stages I requested the NRMA to just do the roof in colourbond. They said they couldn't as they had experienced some problems with NSW heritage before and were forced to remove roofing they had done in this way ...

This property has been sold on the last two occasions in a severe state of disrepair. It is heading down this same path and there is nothing I can do about it. Please help! This problem is not just peculiar to me and Tulloona House, but is experienced by many that own heritage properties and we wonder why people refuse to list their properties on the heritage register.

I am over contacting heritage. Their website is inaccurate ... Not only as to date of construction, but as to condition. This is despite my having contacted them on a number of occasions. I can't talk to them any more as they don't listen. They just say what they want to say without any objective consideration ... The last time I spoke with them I was told they were doing their best; they only had some 40 people over the entire State with which to support heritage and abide with legislation You would think it was my problem ... Well it is And the saddest thing is I have no hope of ever being allowed to be removed from the heritage listing ... Bureaucracy gone mad and taking me with it.

Since 2007 these people have been dealing with the replacement of a roof on a house that was built in, I think, the 1890s. They want to replace the red roof, which was damaged in a storm, with a colorbond roof. The house is leaking and mouldy. On a couple of occasions the occupants have had to leave the house because of the environment. They are extremely frustrated. Although I have not made representations to the Minister for Planning, I will speak to her further about this matter. Mark Dunn, President of the History Council of New South Wales, has made representations to me. In an email to me Mr Dunn said:

We question how the Heritage Council will possibly assess heritage significance against the new thematic listings criteria without the input of an historian. We are calling for an amendment to the bill to include a guarantee of an historian on the Heritage Council.

I am sure other members will have received similar representations. Aaron Gadiel, Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Taskforce, said that the bill does not introduce compensation rights for people whose property value is diminished by heritage listing. They are concerned that amendments to section 32 (2) (d) remove the express right for people living near a property proposed for heritage listing to object to the listing on the grounds of undue financial hardship. Angus Nardi, New South Wales Deputy Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, believes there is a fundamental weakness in our current heritage conservation system that involves situations where the public good of heritage listing results in a net cost to the private owner. He said there should be a right of appeal to a property being placed on the heritage list. Many people in a similar position would agree with him.

In country and regional areas the Local Government and Shires Associations councillors have expressed grave concerns to me about changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The association recommends that the proposed amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in relation to extending the powers of planning panels be opposed. It says that the Heritage Council should include members with expertise in local government who can provide the necessary knowledge and experience from a local perspective. It says that the issues that arise in the local government sector in relation to heritage are mostly procedural and often reflect lack of capacity and funding. The list goes on. I am sure Minister Keneally is getting the message. I know that she works with the community and members on this side of the House. The shadow Minister, who is present in the Chamber, together with our leader has proposed a policy of a separate heritage Minister. I believe that is the only way to go. I encourage the Government to adopt our policy.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [1.20 p.m.]: I have very serious concerns about the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009, which makes changes to the Heritage Act 1977, including increasing ministerial powers and making economic consideration part of the heritage assessment process. The bill changes the structure of the Heritage Council and introduces additional requirements before items can be listed. Many changes come from recommendations of the 2007 so-called independent expert panel review as part of the far-reaching and destructive changes carried out by the former Minister for Planning to deliver planning and heritage to developers and exclude people and democratic decision making from the heritage and planning process. With new developments frequently changing the urban landscape, inner-city residents care a great deal about protecting significant links to their built, natural and social history.

A 2006 City of Sydney electorate-wide survey found that protecting and enhancing neighbourhood heritage is a top priority for residents. These links with our past do much more than just provide examples of what used to be: they also contribute to the character of an area, particularly in inner-city areas like Paddington, Glebe, Surry Hills and Redfern, where heritage buildings interact with modern living, adding to village character. Heritage helps us understand our place in history, our attitudes and our priorities. Heritage items show us how our appreciation for aesthetics and our connection with the natural environment have changed over time. Communities feel a serious sense of loss when important heritage is destroyed. We have had a shameful record of protecting our heritage. Sydney was once one of the finest examples in the world of a Victorian city, but much of it has been bulldozed without any value assessment.

The Wran Government introduced the Heritage Act 1977 in response to widespread community concern over the extensive loss of heritage during the destructive Askin era, which led to greater public awareness and the green ban movement. Legislative changes of this Government should ensure that existing heritage protections are maintained or enhanced, and that there is appropriate preservation and restoration of our built and natural heritage. But this Heritage Amendment Bill is more about diminishing heritage protection to fast-track development to the detriment of our city and State. While reasonable economic use and potential financial hardship are not new to the heritage process, these criteria should not be part of initial assessments about significance.

Currently, the first stage of assessment provides a scientific approach to listings based solely on heritage value. This is consistent with the Australian Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites [Australia ICOMOS] Burra Charter, adopted by Commonwealth and State Governments, which stresses the need to keep decisions about heritage significance separate from decisions about management. I agree with Australia ICOMOS and the Local Government and Shires Associations that it is inappropriate to include economic and financial matters in decisions about heritage significance. Australia ICOMOS points out that reasonable economic use changes over time, citing that the Queen Victoria Building, which a former Labor Lord Mayor wanted to demolish for a car park, and the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf, which the former Greiner Government wanted to demolish but I was able to persuade it not to when I held the balance of power in the early nineties, were once considered not to have an economic value and were almost demolished. These buildings now have been successfully adapted and conserved, and are very much an important part of Sydney.

I stress that it is wrong to presume that heritage listing reduces the economic value of buildings. The Chairs of the State and Territory Heritage Councils of Australia have stated that Australian and international studies show that heritage listings do not reduce property values. But loss of connection to the past through loss of heritage has a significant community impact. Proactive programs that assist property owners to meet maintenance, repair and restoration costs are a more appropriate way to address genuine financial hardship. I acknowledge the recently announced $97,250 in New South Wales heritage grants for local heritage projects in the Sydney electorate.

While economic criteria will play a major role in heritage listing under this bill, these are not adequately defined and I am very concerned that they will be used as a loophole by developers and owners to maximise profits. The Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 enables the Minister to approve the criteria used to establish whether an item is of State heritage significance, where previously the Heritage Council notified the Minister of these criteria. The bill also allows the Minister to refer or request that an item be delisted in response to a request from an owner. I share strong community concern about increased ministerial power over the heritage process, which the community believes is about appeasing developers and removing their say on planning and heritage matters. The Minister for Planning should not have the final say about what should be independent and objective heritage criteria. I ask that the approval of criteria for State heritage significance be open and transparent, and involve the community, because it is the community who have fought to save our buildings, such as the Queen Victoria Building and the Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf.

The bill reduces community-based representation on the Heritage Council, representing a further shift away from an independent heritage body, which began with the incorporation of the Heritage Office into the Department of Planning last year under the former Minister. There is strong community concern that the new body will lack the experience and knowledge to ensure adequate heritage protection. The loss of a Royal Australian Historical Society representative will reduce the role of history and archaeology in State heritage and is opposed by the History Council of New South Wales, the Royal Australian Historical Society and many residents who have contacted me. Surely an historian is vital to appropriately assess heritage, particularly with the new thematic approach to State heritage recently introduced.

Australia ICOMOS points out that under the bill the new Heritage Council can be made up of members without any having heritage expertise. Australia ICOMOS has called for at least four of the six heritage members to have heritage expertise. The Local Government and Shires Associations are calling for a member on the council to have expertise in local government. The provision to allow regulations that exclude representation, including legal representation, from Planning Assessment Commission hearings on heritage matters is consistent with provisions to exclude representation at such hearings that were introduced with last year's changes to the planning system. I note the Legislation Review Committee has raised this as an issue that Parliament should consider. I oppose this part of the bill, as lawyers can help people understand their rights and they can assist people who lack the skills to present their case at a hearing.

While developers complain that the current definition of a relic for items of 50 years or more is too broad and therefore delays development consents, causing building sites to grind to a halt, the proposed definition of State or local heritage significance will be vastly more difficult to ascertain and result in the loss of a huge number of archaeological deposits. I welcome provisions in the bill for interim stop-work orders to immediately prevent harmful works to items on the State Heritage Register and items with interim heritage orders, which has previously been difficult to do. Governments' preoccupation with development can lead to heritage being treated as an annoying impediment rather than an exciting opportunity.

The City of Sydney is completing extensive work to put in place effective mechanisms to protect, enhance and interpret our heritage. Our work includes listing specific heritage items, streetscapes and conservation areas in the new City Plan Local Environmental Plan; general heritage provisions to protect heritage characteristics so that historic terrace houses that are not individually listed will have their distinctive characteristics protected—these city-wide controls will be in a section of the City Plan Development Control Plan; local area controls to be included in the development control plan, but focussing on the distinctive heritage of particular geographic areas rather than applying to the entire Local Government area; comprehensive inventory sheets and heritage information that will assist in assessing items of heritage importance; and a Heritage Grants Program providing funds up to $10,000 for projects that improve our heritage, with grants offered on a dollar-for-dollar basis and successful applicants required to meet half the cost of the project from other sources.

My greatest concern is that the Heritage Amendment Bill makes changes to the planning process by giving joint regional planning panels plan-making powers. Last year I strongly opposed the undemocratic legislation that introduced joint regional planning panels and gave them planning consent powers. Joint regional planning panels take decisions away from elected bodies and elected representatives; they diminish the involvement of people and their right to have a say in where they live; and they add another bureaucratic tax-payer funded layer to our already grossly over-governed State—three tiers of government for 20 million people. To give these unelected bodies plan-making powers is a devastating further assault on our democratic processes in New South Wales. This bill represents the increasing obsession of the Government to see community involvement and heritage protection as impediments to development that need to be removed. I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Peter Besseling and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Assistant-Speaker (Mr Grant McBride) left the chair at 1.29 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]