- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 8 June 2005
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 5 of 36
| Next Item »
Page: 16650
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Ms PAM ALLAN (Wentworthville) [11.27 a.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill. I congratulate the Government, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, the Premier and Cabinet for their initiative on bringing forward these legislative amendments. As other honourable members have indicated when speaking to the bill, comprehensive debate has been occurring both within the Parliament and within the community about the nature of the reforms contained in the bill. I note the enthusiastic endorsement given earlier this morning by the honourable member for Gosford for many sections of the bill.
There is no doubt that the bill meets the demands that have been raised with the Government over a decade to try to improve planning processes in New South Wales. There are many good news stories in planning in this State. Unfortunately, there have been times when many major projects, which are indeed the focus of this legislation, have been caught up in protracted approval processes as a consequence of what have been some fairly cumbersome parts of environmental planning legislation. Environmental planning legislation is always challenging. Most planning Ministers, of this and previous governments, have made statements to that effect in the years that I have been a member of this Parliament. But this is the first time that a government has been able to focus on a whole-of-government approach to major strategic projects that affect our State. I look forward to enthusiastic endorsement of this legislation by people and companies in this State who, for many years, have spoken about projects that they might undertake in this State if planning approvals were able to accommodate them.
Another good thing about this legislation is that it does not ignore the needs of the community, despite some concerns raised by a number of members who have spoken in the debate. We have reached a time in New South Wales when it is accepted, not just by government, local and State, but by the private sector that the community has a valuable and valid role to play in the approvals process. It is a dopey developer indeed that tries to install in this State a project that does not have community support. I congratulate the development industry and the major projects industry in this State for now beginning to take the initiative to ensure that local communities are well apprised of the nature of projects that they are contemplating developing before processes and projects get too far along the track.
There is a lot of good news in this legislation for the big end of town. However, I want to talk also about smaller projects, because this bill, while focusing on the State Government's role in major projects, returns a significant number of projects to local council for approval. In the same way as the honourable member for Heffron spoke about how the bill will affect some issues in her local electorate, I want to talk about some projects proceeding in my electorate and how significant this bill will be for them. Only a couple of weeks ago I spoke in this House about redevelopment occurring in Toongabbie within my electorate. That is major development, but perhaps not so large that it would qualify under the new proposals under consideration today.
The processes engaged in by the local council, Holroyd City Council, at the time related to a major development in which the State Government could have intervened at any time to try to make sure the process was kept on track. I congratulate the Holroyd council, under the leadership of the former mayor Mal Tulloch, for making sure that project was kept on track. Unfortunately, circumstances that have arisen since the original approval have resulted in the project falling from the track. I spoke in this place on 24 May about a project to redevelop the Toongabbie shopping centre being undertaken by Simon Symond of North East Developments.
On 24 May I referred to the family connections of Mr Symond. Mr Simon Symond's brother is Aussie John Symond. As I noted in my speech on that occasion, John Symond is not only a very successful businessman in this town and this State—he is the face of Aussie Home Loans—but he is also a renowned philanthropist who contributes to a number of charities in this State. On that occasion I said with a great deal of sincerity that it would be useful if John Symond were to think about giving his brother, Simon Symond, some assistance to ensure that the development Simon Symond and North East Developments were pursuing was able to go ahead. Following my speech on 24 May the Parramatta Advertiser last week ran a front-page story which I think it will correct in today's edition. When talking about my comments the article made an embarrassing blunder by confusing the two brothers. They confused the highly successful and very affluent John Symond of Aussie Home Loans fame with his more humble brother, Mr Simon Symond, who is the developer
Last Wednesday the front page of the Parramatta Advertiser displayed an enormous aerial photo of the harbourside mansion of John Symond currently under construction with the headline "Save Toongabbie". I agree with the sentiments of the article. We have to save Toongabbie, and those are the sentiments I have expressed in comments in this House and in various letters I have written to my constituents. However, it is unfortunate for Mr John Symond that the Parramatta Advertiser ran a photograph of his house instead of the Cremorne residence, which I do not think is harbourside, of his brother, Mr Simon Symond. I am not sure whether he is the younger brother or older brother, but he is certainly the less affluent brother. The article in the Parramatta Advertiser said:
DEVELOPER John Symond has hit back at Wentworthville State Labor MP Pam Allan, saying her speech in Parliament last week was "cowardly".
Unfortunately, the Parramatta Advertiser got it wrong. The comments it was referring to were made by Simon Symond. Another relative of the Symond family has just come into the Chamber. I am sure the Parramatta Advertiser will apologise sincerely to John Symond. It is unfortunate because Mr John Symond certainly has not made any such comments, although Mr Simon Symond certainly made similar comments to the Parramatta Advertiser and he has rung me on at least one occasion since my speech. The Parramatta Advertiser would be very embarrassed about its blunder, which has confused the issue.
Mr Thomas George: Not half as much as you will be.
Ms PAM ALLAN: It is not a question of personal embarrassment. It is a question of ensuring that our local community, which is not currently being appropriately serviced by its shopping centre, has that shopping centre redeveloped and that the millions of dollars worth of development that Mr Simon Symond of North East Developments has promised to the community of Toongabbie is completed as quickly as possible. Mr Simon Symond believes that the only reason I have an interest in this matter is that I am a political opportunist. That is an unfair criticism by Mr Simon Symond. It is important that he should be aware of my longstanding interest in this issue and my lifelong interest in the community of Toongabbie. Having grown up in Toongabbie, having educated my son at Toongabbie and having spent considerable time over many years with the residents of Toongabbie, I am in a better position than Simon Symond to say that the local community of Toongabbie is most disappointed that his redevelopment of the Piccadilly shopping centre at Toongabbie has not taken place.
Mr Simon Symond received his initial approval from Holroyd City Council on 25 June 2003 to construct his next retail, commercial and residential development, which was supposed to comprise a Woolworths supermarket, speciality shops, seven professional suites, three levels of basement car parking comprising 270 retail commercial spaces, and 136 resident and 24 visitor spaces. He was also supposed to act on the approval he received on the same day for three residential buildings atop the development, two of five storeys and one of six storeys, containing a total of 121 residential apartments. Anyone who visits Toongabbie could see that such a redevelopment would have had a profound impact on the shopping centre as it was in June 2003. If they were to visit the site now they would wonder what has been going on for the past two years because all they would see is a boarded- up site and no construction activity whatsoever, which has led to outrage within the local community.
Despite the commitment of Mr Simon Symond of North East Developments to acquire the site and despite receiving almost unanimous approval for the project from Holroyd City Council, no action has occurred. I understand that Mr Simon Symond of North East Developments paid $6.3 million for the site. Only last night at a meeting of Holroyd City Council he claimed that in the two years since the initial approval he has spent $15 million on the site. If he has spent $15 million on that site, he has certainly not got value for money. He may have spent up to about $3 million on his various studies and what-not in relation to the development in the past two years, but he certainly has not spent $15 million. As I have indicated, there is no construction activity whatsoever on the site. Last night was a significant night in the whole process. Mr Simon Symond went back to Holroyd City Council to seek a 12-month extension of the development approval for this major project, which he was granted.
Despite the fact that Mr Simon Symond has been telling everyone, particularly since he started to get a bit of adverse publicity in the local newspaper and particularly since I have started to talk about the matter in his House, that he was about to bring in the bulldozers, he went back to the council last night to seek an extension of the development approval, which was due to lapse on 4 July 2005. Despite some opposition last night he was granted that extension by Holroyd City Council. The council would like the project to continue and to be successful. It continues to give Mr Simon Symond the benefit of the doubt about whether he will be able to make the project work. As I indicated on 24 May Mr Simon Symond has closed shops that previously operated in the Piccadilly centre. On that occasion I suggested that if Mr Simon Symond was financially unable to commence construction on the site, perhaps he should reopen the various shops that he closed and return a successful shopping centre to the local community of Toongabbie.
Mr Symond has not done that. He has made no attempt to reopen the shops. I am disappointed with Mayor John Brodie and Holroyd City Council for not imposing new conditions on Mr Simon Symond when they extended his development approval to ensure that he either starts the work immediately or reopens the shops. I hope I have clarified the matter. The John Symonds of this world will be delighted with the legislation we are debating because it will make the approval processes in relation to their major projects all the more efficient and effective. The bill will not directly impact on the local developer, Mr Simon Symond, but I took this opportunity to express my concerns because the legislation returns to councils the opportunity to consider local projects. The Holroyd City Council had done it successfully, but, unfortunately, the developer, Mr Simon Symond, has not done the right thing by the community of Toongabbie.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [11.39 a.m.]: Bit by bit, the hard-won rights of people to be involved in the form and future of our cities, towns and living environments are being wound back, and environmental protection and resource sustainability measures are being overridden and diminished while protection of our history and heritage is being removed. It was not so long ago that the people had no say in the form and future of their cities, towns and environments. It was a free-for-all between governments and developers. I am concerned that with the formation of government development authorities, most recently the draconian Redfern-Waterloo Authority, in relation to which a single Minister is given absolute power, when protective environmental controls mean nothing and heritage is just in the way, we seem to be returning to undemocratic days.
I am very concerned about this bill and I support the comments made by the honourable member for Manly. This bill represents a repudiation of an Act that a previous Labor Government proudly introduced to ensure for the first time the right of public involvement and to establish requirements to assess critical environmental criteria. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, which provided a basis for people to be involved in planning processes, was a heralded breakthrough and has been the basis of planning ever since its implementation, notwithstanding the regional environmental plans [REPs] and subsequent State environmental planning policies of a former Minister for Planning, Robert Webster, and the establishment of authorities. I am very concerned about rights being removed. This is a time when there is a need for greater environmental responsibility and resource sustainability.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill 2005 has two major sections. The first provides for a new part 3A in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that creates a new planning process for development that is considered to be major Infrastructure. These changes give the Minister extraordinary discretion over environmental assessment, criteria for approval, and public input. The second major element of the bill implements substantial reforms to the operation of local environment plans [LEPs] and development control plans [DCPs]. While the draft standard LEP template was on public exhibition last year, the final content is unclear and there has been no public consultation on other reforms.
Currently parts 4 and 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act set the processes to be followed for all development and environmental assessment. This bill creates a new section in that Act that will remove the normal checks and balances to fast-track some development. This will apply to two types of development: first, major infrastructure development, which will include development, whether or not it is carried out by a public authority, for the purposes of roads, railways, pipelines, electricity generation, electricity or gas transmission or distribution, and sewerage treatment facilities, dams or water reticulation works, desalination plants, trading ports or other public utility undertakings; and, second, critical infrastructure projects, which appear to be a particular form of major infrastructure development that, in the opinion of the Minister, is essential for the State for economic, environmental or social reasons.
This legislation does not provide clear criteria for major or critical infrastructure. While proposed section 75A defines the terms, it does not limit the new provisions solely to the listed infrastructure projects. The designation of something as major infrastructure appears to be at the Minister’s discretion. New part 3A provides a substantially emasculated planning process for major infrastructure. The environmental impact assessment [EIA] process, including the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement [EIS], is removed. The Minister may develop guidelines for environmental assessment, and the director-general is to prepare environmental assessment requirements on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the guidelines. A panel of experts may be appointed by the Minister to assess applications for approval, but there is no requirement that the recommendation of the panel’s conclusions will bind the Minister.
The level of public involvement is effectively at the discretion of the Minister or the panel. It is all the "may develop", "may be appointed", and "at the discretion" terms that have generated real concern. Having been a representative of an area of Sydney for two decades, I know the pressure that is exerted on Ministers and I am very concerned about what this legislation will mean not only for the immediate future but for the long term. For critical infrastructure projects, the bar will be set even lower than for major infrastructure development. It appears that the Minister can approve a declared critical infrastructure project that would otherwise be prohibited by an environmental planning instrument. There will be no interim protection orders, no stop work orders, no environmental protection notice and no order under section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 that will be able to interfere with the approval of a designated critical infrastructure project. There will be no third party appeal rights, except with the consent of the Minister.
I am particularly concerned by the proposed new ability of the Minister to give approvals based on concept plans when a detailed description of the project is not required. Particularly with large and complex projects, there is routinely a major gap between concept and reality, and we all know that. The most troubling aspect of this proposal is that it is coming from a State Government that has failed in its responsibility to plan and build the infrastructure that is necessary to support higher residential densities and major development and, instead, is usurping the role of local government and excluding local communities so that it can approve development without providing the necessary context, such as transport, facilities, social support and open and recreational space. What really concerns me is that this bill could be a recipe for environmental degradation, urban chaos and social dysfunction. This legislation is the hallmark of a bandaid, day-to-day Government that pushes problems onto our children and to future governments to try to solve. Surely the role of government is about not only planning for the immediate term but also leaving a legacy of which we may be proud.
The second major section of the bill implements significant changes to the operation of local environment plans and development control plans. These provisions are also being pursued without adequate consultation with local councils and without any public debate. The only discussion that has occurred with the Council of the City of Sydney about these reforms has been the standard LEP template that was placed on public exhibition in draft form in September last year. Council officers have been expecting that a revised template could be due for public exhibition soon, but the final shape of the template is unclear.
Schedule 2 implements the use of the standard LEP template, but it is appropriate that the template be completed and that the framework is agreed with local councils before this legislation is passed. While the Council of the City of Sydney has been generally positive toward LEP standardisation, we have expressed concerns that excessive standardisation will limit our ability to respond to the particular local circumstances of inner city development. A stated objective of this reform is to achieve a single LEP for the area. Proposed section 33B provides for the Minister to impose a staged repeal program, requiring councils to prepare new LEPs within a specific period. Proposed section 33B (4) allows the Minister to make an LEP by order if a council does not make a replacement instrument on schedule.
This is of particular concern for the Council of the City of Sydney as the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources has identified it as a priority council for reform. The city is committed to amalgamating and updating the three sets of planning instruments from the former city, South Sydney and Leichhardt council areas. We have committed resources in the currently exhibited corporate plan by employing more planning staff, and the Council of the City of Sydney is committed to completing the new city plan by the end of 2006. Any State-imposed repeal program must have a fair and reasonable time frame, with appropriate resources being made available for councils to prepare plans within the stated time frames.
Schedules 2 and 3 amend provisions regarding development control plans and staged development applications. There have been no discussions with the Council of the City of Sydney about these provisions and their meaning is unclear. The Council of the City of Sydney's staged consent processes in the central Sydney LEP have been well received by the property industry and supported by members of the Central Sydney Planning Committee. The process has enabled applicants to gain certainty and legal recourse for the framework and concept of large developments to enable them to proceed with more detailed planning and, potentially, financing for the project. It is unclear how the new provisions will affect this well-received planning process. The legal mechanism, section 80 (4) of the Act is retained, although renamed from staged development to total or partial consent.
However, proposed sections 83B and 83C will enable applicants, at their choice, to lodge staged development applications that set out concept proposals for which detailed proposals for separate parts of the site may be subject to subsequent applications. Staff of the Council of the City of Sydney are concerned that this may conflict with the design excellence provisions of the 1996 central Sydney LEP in both its existing and draft forms. I ask the Minister to clarify these provisions. Proposed section 74C provides for changes to public advertising and notification in a DCP where a planning authority considers it necessary or desirable. These provisions appear to do nothing more than reinforce existing powers. I ask the Minister to explain the meaning of these provisions.
Proposed section 74D (5) (a) also imposes a 60-day time limit for a planning authority to make a development control plan and submit it. I am very concerned that this provision appears to undermine the right of a local council to set planning for a site, and appears to set up scope for a DCP application process. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether or not that scope exists. A period of 60 days is also unlikely to provide sufficient time for an appropriate assessment and for public consultation and exhibition, particularly considering council meeting cycles and the complex issues that may need to be assessed as a result of public exhibition. The new power in proposed section 74D (5) (b) appears to enable the Minister to also make a development control plan if the 60-day time frame is not met.
The bill states that that can occur only when an environmental planning instrument authorises the Minister to do so, it is not clear to what extent that will occur. These provisions are unclear but have potential to undermine local council control in the planning process, transferring power to land owners and developers. This legislation has been introduced into this House with promises that it will establish greater certainty in the assessment process, something the New South Wales public is calling for. The public's desire is for certainty in planning controls that determine the shape and form of future development. From my discussions with developers and the property industry I know they are seeking the same certainty, so that they know where they can go with their proposed development. Certainty in the provision of needed infrastructure through long-term strategic planning and certainty through guaranteed outcomes for the environment, heritage and amenity, is what we all want.
Unfortunately, the only certainty with this legislation is that development will be given the green light in the shortest possible time with, it would seem, inadequate assessment. The changes will diminish accountability and transparency, and limit community involvement. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is more than 25 years old and what was at the time a progressive reform has been undermined by ad hoc, inconsistent, poorly consulted and badly thought through amendments in recent years. In conclusion, I call on the Government to withdraw this legislation for appropriate consultation and urgently begin work and consultation on an integrated review of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.
Mr CRAIG KNOWLES (Macquarie Fields—Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, and Minister for Natural Resources) [11.51 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this important debate. Before commencing my formal remarks I make the broader comment that members in this Chamber, particularly the honourable member for Granville and myself, have participated in debates about environmental legislation for many, many years. Invariably—and today is no different—there will always be the standard speech, usually penned by someone other than the member, which is more about dogma and ideology than about fact. In the context of this legislation, such a speech was heard again today. During the second reading debate some remarks contained an assumption that in my view reflected a false view that somehow a quantity of process equates to quality of outcome. That, of course, is arrant nonsense.
By constantly adding to the process, particularly in an environmental assessment, the international evidence is clear that it degrades and diminishes environmental outcome. People become more focused on the process rather than on the objective of protecting the environment and underpinning the environmental, social and economic considerations associated with the assessment of any proposal. Equally, there is the false view that more time axiomatically gives a better result. That is patently not the case. Equally, there is a view that governments can work only within their silos and that environmental assessment has to be done sequentially. For some years international best practice has been that government agencies are required to work collaboratively out of their silos and do things iteratively or in parallel. Those old chestnuts that are trotted out and regurgitated without any intellectual input by a member of Parliament are more about ideology and dogma and fact, and they need to be constantly exposed. I do so again today.
The honourable member for Bligh read onto the record, I think without necessarily understanding it, her great anxiety about the use of the word "may" as opposed the word "shall" as if it were some sort of titanic shift in the principles underpinning the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The word "may" has been incorporated in the planning Act since 1979. The use of the word "may", the discretionary power, as opposed the word "shall", the obligatory power, has always been reflected in the Act, and there is no change. Indeed, it is a direct carryover. I implore those who read the second reading debate to view some of the contributions as little more than ideology and dogma and not based on fact or the content of the bill.
I return now to my formal remarks and will reinforce some of the points made and undertakings given during the consultation process. I again thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. The point I made in my second reading speech is that the wellbeing of our economy depends on business being able to work with certainty, a minimum of risk, low transaction costs and appropriate levels of regulation. The bill demonstrates the Government's determination to take decisive action to achieve those objectives. By establishing greater certainty and efficiency in the assessment of projects of State significance and major infrastructure projects, the bill supports our economy and the Government's determination to provide opportunities to the private sector to participate in the delivery of our infrastructure programs
There is no doubt that the bill dramatically improves the climate in which to do business in this State. The bill implements important elements of the Government's planning reform program, a program which is overhauling our planning system and cutting red tape at all levels. The bill introduces new mechanisms which will ensure the Government delivers quickly and efficiently on its infrastructure programs. Projects for roads and transport, schools, hospital upgrades, and water and energy projects are some obvious examples. Importantly, the bill has been introduced ahead of the recommendations of the Prime Minister's infrastructure task force for the establishment of what he calls a one-stop-shop, a single point of contact for project facilitations and approvals of major infrastructure, in each State with a single Minister responsible for issuing all necessary State approvals. Once again, the Prime Minister supports the work the New South Wales Government is doing through this legislation, as it embodies a specific recommendation of the Prime Minister's infrastructure task force about which commentary has been given in recent days.
A single assessment and approval system for major development and infrastructure projects will replace approval processes currently scattered throughout various legislation. The bill will also improve the co-ordination of major strategic projects as well as ensure that the State focuses properly only on those matters which are genuinely of State or regional significance. A significant number of projects will be returned to local councils for approval. For example, and this might be of interest to the honourable member for Bligh and totally contradicts some of her assertions, over the past four years more than 700 urban and coastal development projects valued in excess of $2.3 billion were determined at ministerial level. However, under the new provisions, more than 600 of those projects would have a combined value of less than $130 million.
Under this package of reforms those developments would have been determined by local councils. That is, of the 700 projects I have determined in that time more than 600 of them would have gone back for local determination. That is what this bill provides for. It is not taking power away from councils, but returning projects that historically have had ministerial determinations back to local government for its determination. For complex projects, concept approvals will increase certainty upfront and reduce environmental and investment risks and costs. They will allow the community to comment earlier in the development process and for community views to be taken into consideration in the refinement of the projects. In that sense, this is an enhancement of the transparency and community involvement in the assessment of major projects and projects of State significance. In addition, the environmental protection provisions under nine different Acts will be integrated into one approval. These reforms have been developed from long practical experience. The new regime of environmental, social and economic assessment of major projects proposed in part 3A of the bill has been built on the 25 years of environmental assessment practice by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR] and its predecessors under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In these circumstances the bill provides New South Wales with a significant one-time opportunity to build a one-stop, outcome-focused and value-adding assessment regime that can direct and target the right levels of environmental assessment to specific projects.
The new environmental assessment procedures will address the real social, economic and environmental impacts that arise from specific proposals, and not just be a compendium of information. By having one integrated assessment process and by concentrating the environmental procedures and requirements in the guidelines, the new environmental assessment procedures will reduce time, cost and complexity in the assessment of major projects. The bill will ensure the credibility of environmental assessment and community participation and that environmental outcomes are not compromised.
To add to the environmental rigour in the assessment process, the assessment will be carried out under guidelines and protocols to be developed by a new chief executive officers forum. That forum will be comprised of directors-general of the major regulatory agencies. The guidelines and protocols will set the rules for assessment methodology, consultation requirements and performance levels, and will ensure that high environmental outcomes are achieved. For the first time the bill provides that the guidelines will be issued by the Minister and not by the director-general. In another first, they will be gazetted to ensure transparency and they can only be adopted after consultation with the Minister for the Environment when they relate to matters concerning threatened species or Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Let me quickly deal again with the nonsense that this is somehow removing or diminishing environmental assessment integrity. Historically, the director-general, in isolation, without reference to anyone else, especially other agencies such as the conservation agencies, could issue directions and guidelines as part of the process of assessment. Under the proposed regime guidelines will be developed by the director-general in consultation with other executives of other agencies and the Minister will not only publish them, they will be gazetted. In relation to guidelines relating to threatened species and Aboriginal cultural heritage, that will be done in consultation with the Minister for the Environment. Fundamentally, that is a major elevation in the commitments we give to environmental assessment of major projects and projects of State significance. I think that does away very quickly with the nonsense that has been touted around, based more on ideology and dogma, that this somehow is a diminution of environmental assessment.
The bill makes it clear that State environmental planning policies [SEPPs] must be considered when making a determination about a project, including a critical infrastructure project. Before commencing the new part 3A the Government will ensure that community consultation and the environmental assessment are enhanced by amending the State significant development SEPP expressly to provide that there is an appropriate consideration of economic, social and environmental impacts of proposals, the suitability of the site, a report on community submissions and other community consultations, and other public interest matters before determinations are made.
The new part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will strengthen environmental outcomes and provide for earlier consideration of environmental constraints. These changes will provide a more systematic approach to resolving environmental issues, replacing current single-issue considerations. Earlier consideration of environmental constraints will allow earlier and more effective influence over project design and local decisions. This provides better outcomes for the community and the environment without unreasonable cost to the proponent.
The Government will ensure that proponents of major projects deliver on their commitments to communities on environmental outcomes. This bill strengthens the compliance and enforcement tools available under the Act to ensure environmental safeguards are delivered on the ground. The bill provides a new suite of investigative compliance and enforcement powers for authorised officers of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to ensure projects approved under the new part are carried out in accordance with their conditions of approval.
The bill strengthens the monitoring, compliance and audit powers, and provides for offences where the monitoring or audit reporting has been inadequate, false or misleading. The bill gives DIPNR more powers to stop work on a project if there is a danger of any environmental harm. These provisions give real teeth to ensure that the outcomes required by the new integrated assessment process are delivered by proponents when constructing and operating projects approved under the new system. I turn now to critical infrastructure.
I again make it clear that infrastructure will be declared critical only when its speedy conclusion is considered essential to the social, economic or environmental welfare of the State. Declarations about critical infrastructure will only be made following appropriate considerations. It is not a measure that the Government will invoke lightly. The Government will use these provisions responsibly for the wellbeing of communities in New South Wales. The types of projects that might be declared to be critical infrastructure are those that are essential to the State. For example, if Sydney's water crisis continues, the desalination plant could be declared to be critical infrastructure because of its importance in providing drinking water to the people of Sydney if dam levels continue to fall.
Before declaring any project to be critical infrastructure, we will look at the project on a case-by-case basis. There will be a thorough risk assessment looking at financial, economic, social and environmental risk. First, we will look at the financial and economic risks to the State of delivering or not delivering the project. Second, we will need to look at the community implications of delivering or not delivering the project in a timely manner, the extent of social dislocation and the extent of hardship or cost on the community if the project is not delivered quickly. Third, we need to consider the environmental risks of streamlining the delivery of the project, what are the benefits, what are the disbenefits and how the environment will gain from the timely delivery of the project.
The bill provides a clear process for making those declarations. A declaration can only be made either by an order by the Minister, which is gazetted and made publicly available, or by a State environmental planning policy made by the Governor, which is also gazetted and made publicly available. I again make it clear that, once declared, critical infrastructure projects will be the subject of an appropriate environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will take place in accordance with the guidelines provided for in the bill. It is these guidelines that will ensure that all environmental impacts are appropriately assessed, not just threatened species, critical habitat or Aboriginal cultural heritage. The same considerations that apply to other major projects will apply to decisions about whether to approve critical infrastructure. After ensuring that only projects are declared critical infrastructure and ensuring that they are subject to an appropriate environmental assessment, this Government makes this commitment to the communities of New South Wales: We will make sure that these critical infrastructure projects are built.
There have been some calls to make regulations to specify in more detail what types of projects might be declared critical and how they might be implemented. Sufficient powers are currently available under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to achieve this. However, as an initial step I am satisfied that the gazetted guidelines will meet these purposes. I am willing to undertake that we will monitor the operation of the critical infrastructure provisions over the next 12 months. If a need to move from guidelines to regulations is demonstrated after that period, I will make those arrangements at that time. With the new compliance and enforcement powers in the bill we will also be able to make sure that critical infrastructure projects, as well as the other projects approved under these new provisions, are built and operated in accordance with their conditions of approval.
The bill also implements other elements of the planning reforms announced by the Government in 2004. These reforms are the result of the stakeholder task forces I established and have been developed with widespread stakeholder and community consultation. The bill provides the key drivers for the modernisation of local environmental plans [LEPs] and development control plans for the benefit of communities. Our objective is to require every local council to bring in one LEP for its area, which means that over the next five years we will have moved from 5,500 planning instruments to 152. The other goal of the planning reforms is to achieve greater standardisation and consistency of LEPs.
The bill provides for standard instruments to be prepared for environmental planning instruments, namely, State environmental planning policies, regional environmental plans and LEPs. This provision initially will be used for LEPS. The standard LEP will also revise the zoning categories from the present 3,100 down to around 25 and the 1,700 definitions down to fewer than 300. The bill includes amendments to streamline and enhance the process for making LEPs. The staged repeal program in the bill will specify dates for the repeal of existing LEPs and key milestones for the preparation of new plans. These changes will ensure that local councils prepare new LEPs in accordance with the standard instrument. A number of local councils are already well advanced in preparing new LEPs, and have invested significant effort and resources in this process. Transitional provisions are included to allow councils in these circumstances to proceed with making a LEP that does not comply with the standard LEP. Generally, these councils will be required to transpose their plan into the complying format within five years. At the same time the bill will also result in the rationalisation of development control plans. This bill delivers for local communities: Not only does it provide for the efficient delivery of major government services and infrastructure but it helps local councils to deliver local development. By enhancing the staged development provisions in part 4 of the Act, proponents will be better able to stage their developments and councils can deliver certainty to developers at the concept stage, with a bankable approval.
The Government has moved decisively with its planning reform agenda to cut red tape and provide the regulatory conditions needed to support a strong economy, jobs growth and both public and private sector investment. The competitiveness of New South Wales in attracting sustainable infrastructure and investment opportunities to support the State's economy depends on having an efficient and clear development approval system underpinned by an up-to-date planning regime. This bill is a very competent piece of legislation that will underpin the State's economy for generations to come.
I place on record my thanks to the many officers of DIPNR who have worked on this important bill, including Yolande Stone, Amity Durham, Marcus Ray and Sam Haddad, and to my ministerial staff. Sam Haddad is a very fine officer who has served governments of both political persuasions over many long years, always with excellence and the highest level of competence. In many ways his vision is now incorporated in this legislation. I pay tribute to him publicly in this place for a very fine piece of work that will stand the test of time and underpin the wellbeing of the State's environment, its social needs and its economy for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 46
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Beamer
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Black
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Constance
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Mrs Hancock | Mrs Hay
Mr Hazzard
Mr Hickey
Ms Hodgkinson
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Mr Lynch
Mr Maguire
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr O'Farrell | Mr Orkopoulos
Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Shearan
Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Stewart
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr R.W. Turner
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 6
 | Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Ms Moore
Mr Torbay
Tellers,
Mr Barr
Mr Oakeshott | |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:11 : Update this page