- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 6 September 2006
Jobs and Investment in South-western Sydney
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 18 of 43
| Next Item »
Page: 1550
Mr STEVEN CHAYTOR: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Planning. What is the latest information on jobs and investment in south-western Sydney?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I thank the honourable member for Macquarie Fields for the terrific level of interest he shows in all these planning and development matters. Last year the Parliament voted for some new planning laws in this State. Those planning laws involved introducing part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It was an important part of this Government's strategy to cut red tape, improve certainty, and facilitate new investment and jobs for New South Wales. I might say that the legislation was passed with the support of the Opposition. Today I inform the House that I have given approval to a new metal manufacturing facility at Ingleburn, in Sydney, to provide for the manufacture of Advance Metal products.
Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The standing orders allow a correction when a member misleads the House. The Minister has deliberately misled the House. The legislation did not receive the support of the Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The standing orders permit a member to be heard briefly in explanation, but that is not appropriate in the present circumstances. The honourable member for Gosford is well aware of the proper method he should use.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I think they were probably confused then, like they are now. The $14 million investment will secure 160 jobs and create 40 construction jobs. Currently, we have two separate Advance Metal facilities in the Ingleburn industrial area, operating at capacity. This project will consolidate operations in a brand-new facility, which will produce a range of metal products. It was determined under the major projects State environmental planning policy. The benefits of the system are increasingly clear.
A straightforward planning process encourages investment; a transparent public process allows for community input; approval delivers economic benefits for the area and guarantees the jobs of 160 workers; and, of course, the new facility will allow this company to grow even further. The important point about this approval is the way it contrasts with the Opposition's policies on jobs and investment—or, should I say, the confusion surrounding the Opposition's policies in relation to jobs and investment. On Monday the Leader of the Opposition was spruiking on Ray Hadley's program on Radio 2GB, talking about major projects in this State. He said:
Across the State there are clearly a number of sites that are State significant and we should keep our eye on them as a State Government and actually work to make sure you get a good outcome on them
However, in almost the same breath he went on to say:
A planning system which requires ministerial sign-off on decisions is a system that's bound to fail.
What is he saying? Is he saying that the Minister for Planning should not be involved in development consents, that the Minister would not be accountable? Is that the Opposition's policy? It is very confusing because that was Monday, but by Wednesday the Leader of The Nationals was interviewed on the same radio station, when he told the listeners that Sydney's roads need to be declared critical infrastructure. He said:
We need to cut through this … declare it critical infrastructure and simply get on with the job.
Then, referring to other projects I have dealt with, he said:
Frank Sartor can do exactly the same with the Pacific Highway.
On the one hand the Opposition is saying, "We cannot have the Minister for Planning involved", and on the other hand it is saying, "The Minister for Planning should declare the Pacific Highway critical infrastructure." But the confusion continues, and it has been continuing for some time. On 28 June in the News Weekly the constant member for Bega said:
I am joining with the Chambers in calling on the Minister for Planning to reel in the Merimbula and Tura Beach developments to address traffic issues that the development will generate.
If the Minister is to become the consent authority, then an opportunity exists to assess the traffic issues properly.
So the Leader of the Opposition thinks the Minister for Planning should not be involved, the honourable member for Bega thinks I should, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks I should, but they would not have a clue. How does that slogan go? Say anything; promise everything; do nothing. That is exactly what the Opposition does. Let me quote the majority leader of the Opposition—they have the other leader, a deputy leader, and a majority leader. He said in December 2005:
Complaints about local government planning processes are one of the biggest issues residents raise with me each year.
The complaints cover everything from time delays through to inconsistent treatment of applications.
He is saying that of course the Minister for Planning needs to be involved—and we know he thinks that privately. Only today another member of the Opposition congratulated me on dealing with the Becton development at Byron Bay. So, what does the Opposition stand for? There is only one clear policy, and that is to slash the public service; get rid of the public servants of this State. 29,000 public servants out of 33,000 means no Department of Planning. What we will have is no Minister for Planning to deal with applications, but no Department of Planning to deal with them either. Who is going to deal with the applications? Where will investment go?
The Opposition's policies would bring this State to rack and ruin, and bring it to a halt. The property construction sector in this State is worth 14 per cent of our economy, $26.8 billion, and it employs 280,000 workers. All of them would be under threat from the Leader of the Opposition. Everything members of the Opposition say is confused; nothing stacks up. The Leader of the Opposition does not stand up for New South Wales, he will not stand up for jobs and investment, and he would send the State broke.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:29 : Update this page