Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Amendment Bill

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading), on behalf of the Hon. M. R. Egan [3.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

In 1997 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning sponsored the Sydney City waterfront forum to begin the long overdue task of reforming the administration, planning and regulation of land-use activity and development in and around Sydney Harbour. The forum was attended by approximately 190 people representing all levels of government, the commercial and business sectors, harbour contractors, the harbour users, the tourism industry and a range of interest groups and individuals, ranging from peak environment groups through to the development industry.

Despite Sydney Harbour’s grand history, that forum was the first time that all stakeholders with a role to play in managing our harbour had been brought together to work together to identify future strategies to better manage our harbour environment. The forum recognised the value of our harbour to our city and to our nation; its dual role as an economic driver and playground of a great international city; its unrivalled aesthetic beauty; and the delightful mix of uses and activities that makes this harbour unique in the world. To understand the many roles the waterfront plays in the life of our city, it is useful to quickly recount some important facts.

•There are at least 15 government authorities that have a management role in the harbour, ranging across all three tiers of government.

•There are more than 20 separate Acts or regulations that determine what can and cannot be done on the waterfront.

•Each day more than 112,000 visitors come to Sydney, drawn by our majestic harbour, golden beaches and friendly culture. This in turn drives the tourism sector, which contributes $15 billion a year to the State’s economy and provides jobs for 186,000 people.

•There are more than 5,600 hotel and service apartment rooms on or near the waterfront. In addition there are 2,570 rooms either under construction or on the drawing board.

•Sydney is Australia’s premier international convention city. Since 1993 more than 100 major events have been attracted to Sydney. These conventions and events have contributed more than $500 million to the State’s economy.

•Sydney’s waterfront and harbour is the home of large commercial shipping industry, the commercial leisure cruise industry, a world-class ferry service and the New South Wales water police.

•But most importantly, the harbour is seen as the symbol of an Olympic city - the most enduring and attractive image of the Sydney 2000 Games.

Of the many recommendations that came out of that forum, the one that received the most overwhelming support was the need to begin to rationalise the number of authorities with a role in determining development for the foreshore of Sydney Harbour, particularly from Garden Island in the east to Blackwattle Bay in the west. This bill plays a part in that process.

When combined with:

•the Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill, which was introduced by my colleague the Minister for the Olympics earlier this day;

•our State environmental planning policy which will nominate sites of State significance around the harbour;

•the 117 directions which will issue to local government authorities having a jurisdiction over harbour foreshore land; and

•our amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act adopted by this Parliament last year and to come into force on 1 July this year

this bill will ensure that we have a consistent planning framework for our harbour for the first time since Lachlan Macquarie. The Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act currently empowers the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority to own and develop the land within its development area. The authority grants consents under that Act for such development. The Act specifically excludes the operation of parts 3 and 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act from the development area. This means that no planning controls imposed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act apply to development within the authority’s development area. The amendments in this bill will enable the

Page 5449

Minister to make environmental planning instruments under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to control development within the Sydney Cove development area.

The bill also deems the authority’s current planning scheme to have the same effect as if it were an environmental planning instrument. The bill provides that all development in the authority’s development area requires development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, unless an environmental planning instrument to the contrary applies. The consent authority will be the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning as the Minister administering the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act. Any application which has been lodged with the authority but has not been fully determined when this bill comes into force will be determined by the Minister not the authority under the provisions of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act, as if it had not been amended. In conclusion I would like to thank all of those individuals who have participated with the Government in progressing this important reform.

It is worth noting that since the announcement of the proposed amalgamations of the Sydney Cove Authority, the City West Development Corporation, and, at a later date, the Darling Harbour Authority, there has been nothing but universal praise for something that was long overdue. Whilst, in itself, this bill is but a small component of the required changes, it is nonetheless a very significant step in our move towards a more rational regime to protect Sydney Harbour. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.13 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose this bill. Indeed, I would make much the same comments as I made regarding the Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill, which this Chamber just dealt with. The Opposition believes it is important that there be consolidation of planning powers with respect to land on Sydney’s foreshore. This legislation is a step in the right direction. I note that the second reading speech of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning was far less excessive than that of the Minister for the Olympics.

Perhaps that was a recognition that the vision for the Sydney Cove Authority was initially that of the coalition back in the Askin days. The Minister certainly was not as tempted as the Minister for the Olympics was to give a lengthy account of the work of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority. To some extent that is a pity, because over the years the authority has served the area well. This legislation will mean that the authority will cease to have environmental planning functions with respect to land in the Sydney Cove development area. Currently the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority may own and develop land within its area, and may grant consent for development.

At present, planning controls under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act do not apply to developments under the control of the authority. This bill will give the Minister power to make planning instruments under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and to determine developments in the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority area. So this will be one less authority in charge of Sydney’s foreshore. Having said that, I note that the bill will put more power in the hands of the Minister. As the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby said in relation to the Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill, this transfer of power puts significant responsibility on the Minister.

I do not believe a single person who looked at some developments around the Sydney foreshore would fail to have some concern. Anyone standing on land under the control of the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority and looking across to east Circular Quay would express concern about developments in that area. I for one am on record as saying that I am not certain whether a government should spend millions of dollars to pull down that east Circular Quay building. That proposal is of great concern to me, particularly in view of the letters that I receive from carers of people with a disability. The money required to demolish that building would be better spent in other areas of government responsibility, such as child protection. I wonder at some of the planning decisions reached.

The Government does not have a good record with respect to development of Sydney foreshores. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby made a number of comments about proposals such as the Finger Wharf and others involving property around Pyrmont. Such developments rightly cause much community concern about the Carr Government’s direction on Sydney foreshores planning. On the other hand, the bill before the House is a step in the right direction. It is about eliminating another of the consent authorities. The number of these administrative bodies has got out of hand. The Minister’s second reading speech rightly drew attention to the number of authorities able to make decisions on Sydney foreshores that impact on all of us.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.17 p.m.]: The Carr Government indicated in March that it would seize planning control over the foreshore from the heads to the upper reaches of the Parramatta River to halt Federal Government plans to sell off prime Sydney Harbour sites and to strip local councils of planning powers for key foreshore land. The Carr Government indicated also that it would amalgamate the three major city authorities responsible for the inner harbour - the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority, the City West Development Corporation and the Darling Harbour Authority - into a new and powerful Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority, which will be headed by the renowned Mr Gerry
Page 5450
Gleeson. This amalgamation should reduce overlap and duplication between agencies and make life easier for stakeholders, who will then have to approach and deal with only one agency. It will also put greater emphasis on strategic planning, and provide better accountability and fuller public participation in final decisions.

The bill will transfer environmental planning functions with respect to land in the Sydney Cove development area from the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. Of course, the bill just dealt with by the House - the Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill - will transfer the planning powers of the Darling Harbour Authority to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. However, these bills will not establish a single foreshore land management authority. The Government merely intends to develop a State environmental planning policy that will nominate sites of State significance around the harbour; it will not establish a single authority until 2001. It argues that a new body is needed to manage the second largest Olympic precinct - city west and The Rocks - until that time.

As a result, I and other crossbench members are concerned that the method of implementing the proposed changes, the timetable for implementation, and the role and participation of the public in the process are not clear. Indeed, we are concerned what role, if any, the public would play in the development of the State environmental planning policy and in decisions made by the Minister, when the State environmental planning policy will come into force, how long it will apply, and if and when it will be replaced with a more consultative instrument. Environmental groups are of the opinion that removing the exclusion from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for the areas under these authorities and bringing them under a State environmental planning policy would seriously limit public input to development consents.

In order to address those concerns, the Minister is to give an undertaking that the State environmental planning policy will be in place in a matter of weeks, that it will be only an interim measure, and that it will be replaced by a regional environmental plan to be developed by the middle of next year. While the making of a State environmental planning policy is not an open process and does not provide for public participation, it is quicker than a regional environmental plan, and it is needed in order to nominate sites of State significance around the harbour, especially defence lands. Also, the State environmental planning policy will merely nominate the areas and make the Minister the consent authority for them under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Therefore the areas will be subject to part 4 of that Act, and significant developments will be advertised developments. I put on record the following comments made by the Save East Circular Quay Committee:

The example of the East Circular Quay has revealed that the current community consultative processes (notifications under the EP&A Act) do not work.

SECQC strongly advocates the establishment of a community-based advisory committee, resourced by government but holding a degree of autonomy sufficient to allow for independent non-political input into issues associated with harbour-front land, as an early priority.

The Save East Circular Quay Committee also urges the Government to give an undertaking that due process, by way of public notification and exhibition of all development proposals and applications, will be carried out at all times. I support the legislation.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.20 p.m.]: I support the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Amendment Bill. Again, planning powers will be consolidated in the hands of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The Government and the Opposition herald the rationalisation of the number of planning and consent authorities as the reason for the legislation. I agree that 15 government authorities across three tiers of government, all involved in regulation, makes life complicated - especially for developers who are in a hurry. However, the public has a right to be suspicious of this Government’s motives. Many community organisations are calling for greater community input into the future appearance of Sydney Harbour and its foreshores. During my contribution to the second reading debate of the Darling Harbour Authority Amendment and Repeal Bill I said that disgraceful planning decisions, such as the east Circular Quay development, have energised the public.

There is great merit in the proposal of the Save East Circular Quay Committee that a community-based advisory committee be established to facilitate non-political input into issues concerning the harbour and its foreshores. One has only to remember the public outcry and intense interest not only over east Circular Quay but also over Pyrmont, Strickland House, Cockatoo Island and all the harbourside land owned by the Commonwealth Government to realise that Sydneysiders care passionately about their harbour. Many citizens who are not closely entwined in the political process display a considerable amount of vision. They are
Page 5451
more than capable of visualising how our harbour should look 10, 25, 50 and 200 years into the future - not just at the next election. They are frightened to think what atrocities our planners and political leaders will permit next. I support the call of the Save East Circular Quay Committee for the establishment of a community-based advisory committee to ensure that there is true community input for the Minister to consider.

As a recently appointed patron of the Friends of Cockatoo Island, I am well aware of the vision that members of our community concerned with the future of Sydney Harbour can apply and the valuable watchdog role that such organisations perform. In 1995 the Friends of Cockatoo Island, in conjunction with the students of the landscape architecture faculty of the University of New South Wales, entirely on their own initiative, embarked on an international design competition to provide the kind of direction that is currently so lacking from governments with regard to the future of Cockatoo Island. So diverse was the result that the judges of the competition wisely chose to regard the prize-winning entries as a set of ideas. The same sort of approach should be taken with regard to Strickland House, which currently sits decaying and unused. The Government could be making several thousand dollars a week in bookings for functions and wedding receptions, money that could be used to ensure that this wonderful old house does not crumble away. How long will it be before the Government makes a decision about the future of Cockatoo Island and Strickland House?

I am well aware that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has little regard for the opinions of the Australian Democrats when it comes to matters of planning. That is a pity because this city would be far more aesthetically pleasing if he listened. I urge the Minister to seriously consider the establishment of a community-based advisory committee. The Australian Democrats believe that if people are supplied with adequate and accurate information they are more than capable of producing a reasonable outcome.

This is not a novel approach. It is called participatory democracy - a form of government that, given the mess we have witnessed so far with regard to harbour planning decisions, is a concept that will be increasingly demanded by the public, which is reasonable and proper. Recently a most appalling item appeared in the press - it was true; it was not a cartoon or satirisation - which depicted a young man, a tourist wearing a backpack, going up to two people at Circular Quay and saying, "Please, can you tell me where the Opera House is?" The Opera House is currently obliterated by the toast rack, which is the most terrible indictment of what has already been allowed to happen on the harbour foreshore.

I am amazed by the remarks made in another place by the Minister for the Olympics. I am equally amazed by remarks made by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the honourable member for Moorebank. In his second reading speech he spoke about Sydney having a world-class ferry service. I am not quite certain who wrote his speech for him; it was fairly flowery in its language. It referred to our golden beaches and our majestic harbour - the Government has dragged out all the adjectives. However, one cannot call the ferry service between Sydney Cove and Manly a world-class service because it is almost impossible to return home to Manly by ferry after 9.00 p.m. If people go to Manly, particularly in the summer, they have to ensure they finish their walk along the beach or their visit to one of the restaurants in a great hurry so they are able to catch a ferry back to Sydney Cove. Regrettably, we do not have a world-class ferry service. Perhaps it would be a good idea if the Minister or his advisers visited other cities - such as Paris, London or Venice - where ferries are used all the time to see what happens there. If Sydney had a ferry service linked with other transport - such as buses and trains - people who live along the Parramatta River and around Sydney Harbour would use public transport and not clog the roads with their cars. I support the legislation. I hope the Minister will consider the proposal to establish a community-based consultative committee.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.27 p.m.]: As a Green I support the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Amendment Bill. The Greens are comfortable with a clear and pro-active planning process for the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. Sydney Harbour has a long history of poor planning decisions being made about a wide range of prime foreshore land, including the land currently within the Sydney Cove Authority land. Currently that land is not subject to either part 3 or part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. That means that the normal public access to development applications and the environmental impact statement process do not apply to developments within these areas at this stage. The bill amends the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Act to allow the Minister to make environmental planning instruments to apply to development within the Sydney Cove area. All previous regional environmental plans, local environmental plans or deemed environmental plans will not apply to land within the Sydney Cove area. They may be later amended to specifically apply to
Page 5452
the Sydney Cove area, which will require ministerial consent.

The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning intends to implement a State environmental planning policy - SEPP - later this year to co-ordinate planning for the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. This SEPP will also apply to a number of key sites around the harbour, including Federal Government properties, as previously announced by the Minister. These sites will be declared as sites of State significance and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning will be the consent authority for development proposed on this land. The Minister is committed to making this SEPP an interim measure which will be replaced by a regional environment plan for these lands. Under part 3 division 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the Minister is required to carry out consultation with local councils, public authorities and the general public.

The public will be able to inspect the draft plan and make submissions, which will be duly considered, and the Minister can accept amendments to the plan. After the east Circular Quay debacle, it is clear that the people of Sydney want public scrutiny of foreshore development and public participation in the planning process. I have a copy of a letter from the Save East Circular Quay Committee, which has called for the establishment of a community-based advisory committee to allow for independent, non-political input into issues associated with harbourfront land. That is a reasonable request.

The Greens would support an advisory committee process but believe the committee should include representatives from the environment movement and heritage groups. The Greens congratulate the Minister on his initiative to establish a consistent planning framework for the Sydney Harbour foreshore. We are pleased to note that the Minister is committed to public participation and has given an assurance that the State environmental planning policy is an interim measure only and will be superseded by the regional environment plan for Sydney foreshores. In a letter dated 1 June 1998 Hazel Dunstan, honorary secretary of the Save East Circular Quay Committee, stated:

In the light of this committee’s experiences at East Circular Quay, we strongly advocate the establishment of a community-based advisory committee, resourced by government but holding the degree of autonomy sufficient to allow for independent non-political input into issues associated with harbour-front land.

Organisations such as the Save East Circular Quay Committee play a vital role in planning the foreshores of Sydney Harbour for the benefit of those who live in Sydney and for Australians generally.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.31 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Amendment Bill, which is the second in a series of bills. The object of the bill is to amend the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 so that the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority ceases to have environmental planning functions with respect to land in the Sydney Cove development area, those functions to be exercised instead by the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. We have been blessed with Sydney Harbour and its surrounding areas, and it is vital to have a co-ordinated and consistent plan for the area.

Currently at least 15 government authorities are involved in the management of the harbour, across all three tiers of government. The east Circular Quay building is a disgrace and, as I have said previously, there is a need for an urgent solution. I am aware that it would cost millions of dollars to relocate the development, but the building is an eyesore and blocks the views of the Opera House. It is tragic that the relevant authorities at the time supported such a development. I hope that the legislation will prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy. Sydney Harbour is an important tourist destination. It is also important that the four million or so people who live in the greater Sydney area are able to enjoy its beauty and have access to it.

The foreshores of Sydney Harbour should not be surrounded by towers, as is the case in many other countries. In South America, skyscrapers virtually overshadow coastal foreshores and beach areas. More than 20 separate Acts or regulations determine what can and cannot be done on the waterfront. It may seem that Sydney Harbour has been strangled with red tape. However, it is encouraging that more than 112,000 visitors per day are drawn to the beauty of Sydney’s harbour, its golden beaches and its relaxed atmosphere. Our tourism sector contributes $15 billion a year to the State’s economy and provides jobs for more than 186,000 people.

I am concerned that our old harbour ferries are not being utilised. San Francisco and a number of other tourist destinations around the world have spent a lot of time restoring historical railway and tramway carriages, which tourists find very
Page 5453
attractive. As one travels over the Glebe Island Bridge it is tragic to see the rusting and rotting ferries tied up. They may not be efficient in rapidly moving commuters to work, but the old ferries, which are open to the air and the sea spray, are most attractive to overseas tourists, who have the time to enjoy and experience the waves and the rocking of the ferries as they cross Sydney Harbour. I urge the Government, in the countdown to the Olympic Games, to make the restoration of our old ferries a priority. The cost of restoration would not be a loss to the State but a profit, particularly when one considers the number of overseas tourists who would take the time and the opportunity to enjoy them.

More than 5,600 hotels and serviced apartments are now located on or near the waterfront. They provide accommodation for overseas tourists as well as travellers from country New South Wales and other parts of Australia. In addition, 2,570 rooms are either under construction or are on the drawing board. The rapid advancement of the building program has raised concerns about the monitoring process to ensure that harbour views are not blocked and that the beauty of the harbour is not undermined. I am proud to have been born in Kings Cross, to have lived all my life in the Sydney area, and to have worked all my life in the Sydney area prior to entering Parliament. I have always felt a great sense of pride in Sydney Harbour. It is one of the most beautiful harbours in the world, if not the most beautiful. I support the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [3.38 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the bill. I understand from the office of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that concerns have been raised by some members about the State environmental planning policy - SEPP. I would like to assure those members that the SEPP, to the extent that it will apply to the area from Garden Island to Blackwattle Bay, will be replaced with a regional environmental plan - REP - which has more detailed planning controls. The REP process will involve extensive public consultation. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.