- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 8 March 2006
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 7 of 41
| Next Item »
Page: 21228
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 February 2006.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.21 a.m.]: At the outset I thank the Minister for his courtesy in making a staff briefing available to me and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I also thank him for the consultation and his availability to discuss matters concerning this legislation. Unfortunately, however, the various interest groups involved with this legislation advise me they have not had the same level of consultation. I have been told that only yesterday at the briefing for crossbench members of the Legislative Council the Minister's staff were asked what interest groups had been consulted about the bill and the advisers were somewhat uncomfortable. When they were pressed about who had been consulted they finally admitted that they had talked to no-one. This legislation, which is extremely significant in relation to local government development applications, section 94 contributions, contribution levies and development control plans has, at least on the advice given to us, not been discussed with relevant bodies.
Since the legislation was introduced, the Coalition has consulted the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Urban Task Force, the Local Government and Shires Association, individual councillors from various councils, and the New South Wales Council of Social Service. All of these have made submissions in relation to the legislation. Some of them support it strongly, some are strongly opposed and almost all of them are seeking some amendments, which could possibly have been avoided if there had been wider and earlier consultation with the relevant bodies. The Urban Development Institute of Australia [UDIA] has advised as follows:
The urban development sector of New South Wales, as represented by UDIA, wholeheartedly supports these changes and expresses its wish that the Coalition support them in both Houses.
The UDIA is overwhelmingly comfortable with the proposals advanced by the Minister and the Government. It does, however, have some further concerns and I will advise the House of these as they have come to light only recently. The UDIA says:
UDIA NSW has reviewed the EP&A Amendment Bill 2006 and while UDIA NSW remains supportive of the legislation it has some initial comments to offer:
(1) UDIA NSW acknowledges the rationale for the absence of appeal rights for Special Infrastructure Contributions subject to the levy being exhibited prior to adoption with all items identified and costed.
(2) The Special Infrastructure Contributions Plan (SICP) should be subject to regular indexation by a recognised Index (like S94 Plans). It should also be reviewed regularly, perhaps initially every year, then every two or three years, so that it can be adjusted for take up rates, and changes to the Infrastructure list.
(3) Special Infrastructure Contributions should be subject to a regular audit by an independent body, to comment on the level, standard and timeliness of delivery.
(4) The application of the SIC should be limited to the growth centres where a Growth Centres Commission or Development Corporation has been established to collect and expend the contributions. UDIA NSW is conscious that the temptation exists to establish new revenue sources for government in areas that lack insufficient planning and infrastructure coordination …
I interpose to say that I had the opportunity to discuss this aspect with the Minister and he has given me advice about certain developments where it would be inappropriate to use the growth centres commission process for these special infrastructure contributions. The UDIA goes on to say:
(5) The SIC can be applied to administration costs. The amount allocated to administration should be limited to a maximum fixed percentage, so that the maximum amount of dollars are converted into infrastructure, not salaries and consultant fees.
(6) Improved recognition should be given to delivery of services by developers using planning agreements. If a s93F Planning Agreement provides adequate contributions by a developer in relation to its development, the Planning Agreement should be able to exclude the application of s94EE. Effectively, s93F(3)(d) should be amended as part of this Bill.
In practice where a Planning Agreement requires a developer (or consortia) to undertake certain works that are included in the SICP, then the dollar contribution payable for the development is reduced by the plan amount, not the actual cost. This passes the construction risk to the developer, but allows for any cost savings to be recognised by the developer. The infrastructure is delivered as agreed, and the non-PA infrastructure can be funded out of the residual contribution.
(7) UDIA NSW respect that nexus is implied in the Bill. However, UDIA NSW requires greater reassurance that contributions collected within the Growth Centres are expended as a priority within those areas. Accordingly, there is a need to establish boundaries on this provision in s94EL, otherwise contributions may be exacted, from developers in Growth Centres and disbursed outside the area (potentially elsewhere in the State) with the result that the Growth Centre homebuyers paying the levy will realise a diminished tangible return on their contribution.
It is important to note that an organisation that is strongly supportive of the legislation has raised a concern about the structure and operation of the special infrastructure contributions. The other organisations that have been consulted have raised a variety of concerns. The Local Government Association rightly points out that local government is the planning and development system that, alongside the State Government, operates planning in New South Wales. The association states it is:
… extremely disappointed that the Government has failed to facilitate meaningful public participation in the overhaul of the system by consulting Local Government, or the community it represents, concerning the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006. The Bill was introduced on 28 February 2006 and represents the next critical stage of the Government's overhaul of the planning system.
The association expresses its concern that it has not been consulted and that, compared to other States, the scrutiny has been quite inadequate. It says:
In contrast, the South Australian Sustainable Development Bill 2004, on which many of the provisions of the current Bill are based, has been subject to extensive consultation over a period of three years. It is understood that many of the more contentious South Australian provisions have been deferred to enable detailed community consultation.
The Local Government and Shires Associations are concerned by the lack of definition of performance indicators, particularly those to be used by the Minister when the Minister is appointing a planning administrator or a panel. As we have indicated, the Coalition supports in principle the implementation of a planning administrator and a panel in cases involving corruption, when recommended by the Independent Commission Against Corruption or when councils wish for it. But it becomes difficult when the Minister deems the council's progress to be unsatisfactory. Proposed section 118 (1) (b) allows the Minister to appoint an administrator or panel if the Minister is of the opinion that the council's performance has been satisfactory "because of the manner in which the council has dealt with those matters, the time taken or in any other respect". The Coalition has concerns, which are argued strongly by the Local Government and Shires Associations, which stated, when commenting on that section:
This is a very broad and subjective test which enables the Minister to a remove council's planning powers without providing any reasons for so doing. The Minister's second reading speech indicates that the exercise of the power would be subject to the principles of administrative law. However, these grounds for appeal are limited to, for example, whether the power was exercised in a "manifestly unreasonable way". This is a notoriously difficult and expensive ground to challenge such a decision.
LGSA believes that whilst to a large extent the public must rely on the good faith and integrity of public office holders including the Minister, it is important that the public trust is enhanced through transparent and robust accountability measures necessary to safeguard good government and public administration.
The association then said:
LGSA believes that any panels in the NSW planning system should have an advisory role only and not the power to determine DAs. We do not support the introduction of panels with decision-making powers as the approval of DAs.
The association says further that it considers the legislation should be amended to make explicit the criteria used by the Minister; require the Minister to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Local Government before a decision is made; require a formal process of forewarning and enter into negotiations with the council; require consultation with local government with regard to the membership, appointment and operation of panels; and require the State Government to pay the remuneration costs and expenses of the planning administrator or panel. The association has concerns about the local infrastructure contributions and the special infrastructure contributions, which have been set out in the association's manifesto. I do not intend to go through them, other than to say that the association clearly has an interest in this matter, as it has an interest in development control plans. It is asking for certain amendments, and it is appropriate that the House be aware of them, because if they are not moved in the Legislative Assembly I have no doubt that they will be moved in the Legislative Council.
The association seeks to amend proposed section 94EE and related proposed sections dealing with special infrastructure contributions and local infrastructure contributions to ensure that the Minister, when directing a council to approve, amend or repeal a contributions plan, be required to give reasons for his decision; there be a formal process of forewarning and negotiating with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning council's performance in the area; there be consultation with local government in the determination of the level and nature of development contributions in the special contributions areas; local government have a right of appeal to the court in respect of the Minister's decision as it relates to both local infrastructure and special infrastructure contributions; the Minister must be required to provide reasons for his decision to take into account areas outside a special contribution area, and any payment should be subjected to detailed scrutiny such as performance audits by the Auditor-General and oversight by relevant parliamentary committees. I am not sure that the Minister would embrace the proposals with a great deal of enthusiasm.
The association is concerned about development control plans [DCP], and I will refer briefly to the three amendments they will seek. The association said that the bill should be amended to make explicit the criteria to be used by the Minister when directing a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP and give reasons for his or her decision in the interests of accountability and transparency; require a formal process of forewarning and/or negotiation with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning a council's performance in this area; and require the Minister to comply with requirements in the Environment Planning and Assessment Act and regulations when making a DCP or directing a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP. It is obvious that local government's amendments would emasculate the effect of the Act. The Coalition is concerned, as is the Minister and the Government, that an efficient system of development consents operates across New South Wales, together with an efficient system of assessing and determining the major contributions. This is not dependent on council-to-council assessment, but ideally everyone in the State will know what the issues are and how they will be addressed.
It has been pointed out that 45,000 housing developments were approved in 2004, but in 2005 only 34,000 were approved. Clearly, the amount of available housing stock in New South Wales is dropping primarily because of high costs and charges imposed on the development industry and passed on to home buyers. Ultimately the only person who pays is the home buyer. In Sydney especially home buyers are being squeezed out of the market. We all saw the figures released recently by the Daily Telegraph detailing the six most expensive cities in the world, five of which were in the United States of America: the sixth was in Sydney. If anything is going to be done to make Sydney more affordable for young home buyers, for the hundreds of thousands of young people whose ambition in life is to buy their own home, then it is important that both sides of the House determine what can be done to ensure housing affordability.
On our side of the House—and I give credit to the Minister on the other side of the House—we are determined to see what can be done to ensure that although housing prices will be high, which is an inevitable fact of the modern economy, they are made as manageable and affordable as possible to young home buyers in New South Wales. Housing affordability is the underlying criteria on which this type of legislation should be approached. It is not significant to argue who gets what; it is the outcome that is important. If the outcome is going to be a more effective system of opening up land, a more effective system of infilling of available sites in metropolitan area, then everyone would support the assessment of costs and charges and making them more affordable. That is the principle on which the Coalition approaches the legislation. The Housing Industry Association [HIA] has strong objections to the legislation, which they have made very plain. HIA states:
HIA is committed to housing affordability and is deeply concerned about the special infrastructure contributions elements of the new planning Bill. These contributions are a tax on housing. They are:
o Inequitable;
o Inflationary and
o Largely set by the Minister without any independent oversight
No equivalent charge exists elsewhere in Australia.
NSW already has the dubious honour of being the least affordable state, with Sydney in the top 10 of the least affordable cities worldwide.
Over the last 10 years prices have skyrocketed from $107K for a typical family block to over $460,000.
These hikes have been fuelled by constrained land supplies and a massive surge in the number and amount of hidden taxes and charges. Double dipping, excessive fees and charges and taxes on taxes are delivering an over $150K windfall to government for every block of land sold to NSW families. This new special infrastructure contribution will add a further $50,000 to this figure.
It is immoral to ask new home buyers to pay for infrastructure that is enjoyed by the community at large. The people at Manly are not asked to pay for their new ferry—this is a community service provided for and paid for by the community at large through the state government.
Govt must get back to their job and borrow for the necessary infrastructure, allowing for these facilities or services to be paid for over an extended period, not upfront as is proposed by Minister Sartor's bill. No one can borrow as cheaply as govt and Independent research shows government borrowing is the most efficient and equitable means of financing long lived public infrastructure.
The proposed "rules" governing the Minister's state infrastructure levy are inadequate, as are the lack of appeal rights.
While there are clearly elements of the Sartor bill that are welcome to the industry, these come at too high a price. The Bill should be amended to delete any reference to state infrastructure contributions or rejected outright.
The HIA has taken a very strong stand on the legislation. It has prepared a fairly comprehensive analysis of housing affordability in New South Wales, including Sydney house prices and median house prices by capital city. As it is not within my capacity to table documents in the House—and I know what your ruling would be, Mr Speaker, if I sought leave to do so—I shall quote briefly from the analysis. The HIA briefly states:
Housing Affordability in New South Wales—Some Facts
Owning a family home has always been the centrepiece of Australia's enviable quality of life.
Sydney's affordability problem is directly related to the inflated cost of land.
The level of taxes and charges that apply add significantly to housing costs. These charges now total around 35% of average house purchase costs—or $150,000. Together they add an extra $1,028 per month to minimum monthly instalment and a $220,000 in interest paid over the life of a 30 year loan.
It is extraordinary that the tens of thousands of young people battling to get a home are paying $1,028 in government taxes and charges. The HIA analysis further states:
Despite improving marginally over the past two quarters, Sydney housing affordability is at a level equivalent to that of the late 1980's when official interest rates were 17%. Sydney housing is currently 47 per cent less affordable than in 1984.
Home buyers purchasing a median priced Sydney home need to devote 37 per cent of their disposable income to meeting minimum monthly payments.
This is the highest proportion of all Australian Capital cities.
In the December quarter, the median price of a home in Sydney was $518,000. This is $170,000 more than in Melbourne, and $186,000 more than Brisbane.
The Property Council of Australia is supportive of the bill and has made clear its support after being briefed by the Minister for Planning. It states:
The Property Council supports most of the proposed reform measures but proposes two simple amendments to improve the Bill.
Planning Administrators and Planning Assessment Panels
The Property Council strongly supports the introduction of legislation that enables the appointment of Planning Assessment Panels to act as the consent authority in local government areas where illegality, corruption or poor performance has occurred. The Property Council supports elected representatives retaining the policy making functions within councils.
This is a far superior governance model to that which currently exists in local government and we believe this should be extended to apply as a mandatory requirement across the state as per the legislation now before the South Australian Parliament. However, what is proposed in this Bill is an excellent first step.
The use of independent panels provides an excellent opportunity to improve the operation, efficiency and image of local government.
The Property Council continues:
Panels enable clear consistent decisions to be made, thus delivering more positive outcomes for local communities. They also encourage investment as certainty in the process is achieved …
Panels could be appointed in the following circumstances:
• to deal with a particular category of development;
• to deal with development within a specific location;
• on request of the local government authority; or
• in other circumstances.
The Property Council looks forward to reviewing regulations to accompany the Bill that clarify the circumstances in which independent panels may be appointed.
Although the Property Council supports planning administrators and planning assessment panels, it expects that there will be some indication as to what the criteria will be and the circumstances in which independent panels and administrators are to be appointed. In respect to special infrastructure contributions the Property Council states:
The Bill proposes introducing broad new powers to levy new development to pay for state and regional infrastructure …
We are very concerned about the totally open ended nature of the proposed levy. While we accept there will be need to be some sort of development levy to underpin the north west and south west centres to ensure an adequate supply for Sydney (although these are far too high and we are keenly awaiting the outcomes of the Growth Centres Commission's review of these levies), we cannot support an approach which would allow the introduction of new levies by ministerial gazette anywhere in the state. Indeed, Property Council research has shown that development levies are the least efficient of all infrastructure funding options open to the Government.
We therefore propose that the Bill be amended to limit the application of special infrastructure levies only to those areas where a development corporation exists that has been established under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974.
This is a similar position to that taken by the Urban Development Institute of Australia I read out earlier. It continues:
This would allow the Growth Centres Commission to get on with its work.
In relation to development contributions plans the Property Council states:
The Property Council supports the ability for the Minister for Planning to review and amend councils' development contributions plans to ensure nexus is met, contributions are reasonable and costs are apportioned appropriately.
However, we do not support the removal of the option for contributions plans to be questioned in legal proceedings within three months of the date on which the plan came into effect. All contribution plans, regardless if they are made by a local or state authority, should be subject to appeal and the scrutiny of the Court within a limited period of time following their commencement. If a Ministerial-made contributions plans does not satisfy the test of reasonableness, nexus and apportionment under the EP&A Act, then it should not be allowed to stand.
The Property Council seeks, in effect, three amendments: first, in relation to the criteria for the appointment of panels of administrators; second, in relation to special infrastructure levies and for them to be applicable only in areas proclaimed under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act; and, third, that development contributions plans should be subject to appeal and scrutiny in the court. The Council of Social Services of New South Wales [NCOSS] has been consulted also. NCOSS similarly supports parts of the bill and commends the Minister for those sections. However, it strongly opposes other parts of the bill.
Schedule 1 to the bill proposes changes to the system of developer contributions for local infrastructure under section 94 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act. Essentially the amendments give the Minister power to direct a council to approve, amend or repeal the contributions plan. If the council fails to follow the direction, the Minister may make, amend or repeat the relevant contribution plan. In doing so the Minister is not subject to the relevant regulations and there is no appeal against the Minister's decision. NCOSS states:
NCOSS strongly opposes this change. We note that there has been no empirical analysis conducted by the Department that would justify this sort of heavy handed intervention. We have offered to participate in a process to see if any council has a contributions plan that appears unreasonable but this offer has been rejected.
We note that the operation of section 94 has been reviewed many times since 1979. It was most recently reviewed by a State Government task force chaired by Gabrielle Kibble which only reported in February 2004. The report of that task force... did not advocate the approach taken in... this Bill. It noted that more often than not there were short falls in amount of contributions collected, compared to the eventual cost of local infrastructure.
We also note with concern the Minister's rhetoric about providing the development industry with security and certainty. We would stress that the community also needs security and certainty about the facilities and services it can expect in new estate or redevelopment areas. At the very least they should be consulted about any substantive change to contribution plans that affect them.
NCOSS believes that the provisions of proposed new clause 94EAA, as set out in Schedule 1 item 14, should be deleted from the Bill.
That is the position of NCOSS. While it is not something that we would expect the State Government to deal with in the Legislative Assembly, it is a matter that certainly will be raised in the Legislative Council. Only this morning the Urban Development Institute of Australia [UDIA] also issued a media release reaffirming its support for the principles and the thrust of the legislation. I will outline where the Coalition is coming from. The Coalition will support the second reading of this bill. The Coalition will not seek to move any amendments in the Legislative Assembly. However the Coalition will have ongoing consultation relative to the debate in the Legislative Council, and that is clearly appropriate. After all, it is only in the Legislative Council that amendments can be carried against the wishes of the Government.
The Coalition believes that panels and administrators are appropriate. As I said earlier, the Coalition believes they are appropriate in cases of corruption when councils want them and in principle we support the idea that, when a council is demonstrating poor performance, clearly there needs to be some intervention process. The argument is whether we support the use of the term "unsatisfactory." Obviously that is something the Coalition will have to further consider. We are not saying yes, but nor at this stage can we say no. The levies are the subject of further negotiations. The Housing Industry Association's position is very clear. I have stated that on the record. The UDIA's position and the position of the Property Council of Australia show that all interested parties are seeking some form of amendment. At the end of the day, with a lot of legislation it is not possible simply to—
Mr Frank Sartor: Cherry pick?
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the Minister says, it is not possible to cherry pick because once the amendment process is commenced, often piecemeal amendments pose a threat to the whole thrust and purpose of the legislation. We have to take that matter into account. I accept that the housing industry of this State needs to be encouraged and supported.
Mr Frank Sartor: We agree with that.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge the Minister's confirmation that he agrees with that. I have had complaints about one particular council, which I will not name, that takes over 12 months to deal with swimming pool applications. I find that quite untenable. The Minister has given examples of other councils that take months and months to deal with simple planning consents. It is clear that, for whatever reason, some councils are dragging the chain. It should take 12 months for a council to deal with a swimming pool application.
A council may either reject or agree to it within a much shorter time frame than 12 months. I am not saying a council has to agree, but it should be able to give a decision. People are entitled to go to councils and say, "Look, this is my proposal. Can you assess it? Can you give me advice on whether you are going to accept it or not, or whether you will require it to be amended within a reasonable time frame?" The worst situation is when applications are simply allowed to drag on forever, as has happened in my council area of Gosford where the Minister intervened. Development control plans for the Gosford city CBD dragged on forever and nothing was achieved. The town looks exactly as it did in 1950. This bill needs to be examined and scrutinised fairly. I assure the Government that we are trying to scrutinise it fairly. We do not have the same opportunities as the Government because we do not have public service assistance. We have to rely upon talking to people.
Mr Frank Sartor: You have had all the briefings you want.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I appreciate that and I appreciate, as I said earlier before the Minister entered the Chamber, the briefings that the Minister has made available to us and also the advice that the Minister personally has given. That is all appreciated, but we will discuss the matters further as far as Legislative Council amendments are concerned.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [10.50 a.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is the next logical step in the State Government's program of planning reforms. These reforms are aimed at transforming the New South Wales planning system from a process-driven approach to an outcomes-focused approach. The bill allows the Minister for Planning to address concerns relating to the delays and costs of assessing development applications, to help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and to ensure a timely and efficient supply on infrastructure and amenities to new land release areas and other sites identified for strategic growth.
This Government is committed to cutting council red tape. The bill addresses concerns raised by the community about the way councils like Sutherland deal with planning matters. The State Government simply cannot stand by patiently while councils failed repeatedly to make timely, consistent and reasonable planning decisions. Every ratepayer has the right to expect and demand that their elected councillors act in the best interests of the community, making good consistent planning decisions with good sustainable environmental outcomes. The last thing they want is a bunch of party hacks continually squabbling among themselves. They do not want a bunch of councillors making lousy planning decisions, creating unnecessary controversy, calling black white, opposing every New South Wales Government decision, raising spurious issues and wasting ratepayers money just to get their names on the ballot paper at the next State election. But that is what we have in the Liberal majority on the Sutherland council. Ratepayers want accountability, and that is what they do not have in the Liberal majority on Sutherland council headed by mayor Kevin Schreiber.
This bill is about accountability. That is why last Monday night Councillor Schreiber issued a mayoral minute opposing the bill. Big Kev does not want accountability. He does not want the Minister to be able to appoint a planning administrator in cases where a council fails to comply with provisions of the Act, or fails to meet performance obligations. Concrete Kev does not want planning administrators appointed when a council's performance in planning development is unsatisfactory. And he certainly does not want the Minister to be able to direct a council or to act in its place to make, amend or revoke a development plan.
According to Big Kev, giving the State these powers is "cutting local democracy"—he says so, in his mayoral minute. He even calls on the shire's State members of Parliament to oppose the Minister's bill. As far as I am concerned, the mayor and his Liberal cronies on Sutherland council can take a running jump. This is legislation that the shire community needs. Concrete Kev claims the Minister will make the local environmental plan [LEP]. After millions of dollars of ratepayers' money, years of continued squabbling and a multiplicity of amendments rammed through without community consultation by the Rockdale reject councillor Kent Johns, who really could blame the Minister?
But let us examine some of the mayor's reasons in his minute. First, he says that the State-approved LEP will impose higher densities in the shire. This is the same mayor who only last Wednesday night opened a large block of flats on the Kingsway in Miranda. Next he is worried that the Department of Housing might build townhouses in all residential areas of the shire. I do not know how much money he thinks the Department of Housing really has, but certainly in true Liberal fashion he cast a slur on all public housing tenants. He wants to restrict housing opportunities for low income earners throughout the shire. He and his Liberal mates even have a policy of banning villas in all residential areas at a time when our ageing population is simply crying out for more of that type of housing.
In his mayoral minute the mayor also complains about development over railway stations. Well, the news, Big Kev, is this: We are building a new railway station at Kirrawee as part of the $174 million Cronulla rail duplication project. The new station, with its lift that will assist seniors, will be below the road—and that means building over the station. I am sorry, Kev, but the seniors and disabled people need a lift, and their needs come before the absurd demands by a council that severely would restrict the development of transport infrastructure throughout the shire. Given the millions of dollars spent on the new LEP and the years of uncertainty under the present Liberal council, the sooner the Minister makes the shire LEP the better.
What about the planning processes themselves? The Act allows planning administrators to be appointed to perform a council's planning and development functions. Councils such as Sutherland already have an advisory independent hearing and assessment panel [IHAP]. This bill extends that function to a consent role, saving time and money and giving the Minister more flexibility to target unsatisfactory council performance. While members of Sutherland council's IHAP committee have been both conscientious and scrupulous in their determinations and decisions, the same cannot be said about the Sutherland Liberal councillors. Council's report PLN042-06 of 28 November 2005 reviewed the operation of its IHAP committee over a two-year period. The report is telling.
Council has changed the independent panel's recommendations on development applications on 54 occasions. Nine of those 54 changes were made under a Labor shire council between May 2003 and March 2004. But a whopping 45 of the 54 recommendations were changed during the six months between April 2005 and September 2005, under a Liberal-controlled council. In short, that means that the current Liberals are five times more likely not to follow the independent umpire's recommendation than the previous Labor Shire Watch council. But as good and committed as the IHAP members are, their processes are being used and undermined to circumvent the delegated authority of council's staff to refuse non-complying applications. The main culprit is Councillor Kent Johns, who is currently touting himself as the next Liberal candidate for Cronulla.
When Councillor Johns is not writing anonymous complaints to the general manager about Shire Watch Councillor Lorraine Kelly or trying to bully her in one way or another, he is keeping an eye on development applications of interest to him. As soon as he gets wind of the fact that our hardworking council staff intend to refuse a development application [DA] under the delegated authority, Councillor Johns immediately refers the matter to IHAP. This often means a round of hearings with applicants getting another bite at the cherry. It means not only delays, as the DA goes from IHAP to the planning committee, also headed by Councillor Johns, and then to the full council, but also unnecessary cost to the ratepayers who pay for those IHAP hearings. Importantly, it also effectively undermines the credibility and professionalism of the hardworking staff of Sutherland council.
Application ACC009-06 for additions and alterations to a child care centre is a case in point. This application was refused by council staff and letters were sitting in the council out tray waiting to be mailed out. When Johns got wind of this he immediately referred the application to IHAP. He told council staff that he did so because there was "a high level of public interest in the application". As it turns out, there were nine objections, and Johns later admitted to a planning committee that he had called it up "for the applicant". IHAP refused and the council refused, the staff recommendation was eventually followed, and ratepayers' money was wasted. Of course, it took many more weeks for the application to be rejected finally, all because Councillor Johns wanted to grandstand.
I trust that the Minister will use the present legislation to take a close look at this particular practice. Grandstanding, infighting and bashing the State Government are the constant ever-present themes among the Liberals on Sutherland council. The Liberal council is not about good planning and good management. Every decision these Liberal councillors make, every State Government initiative they attack, every issue they create is done for one purpose and one purpose only: to win back the seats of Menai and Miranda, and to take over the seat of Cronulla from our old friend Malcolm Kerr. For example, Councillor Melanie Gibbons, who is the deputy mayor sits on the fence when the overwhelming majority of residents in her ward want the Woronora Fire Trail preserved for emergency use only. She has some unspecified "conflict of interest", simply because she did not have the courage to take a stand one way or the other.
Rather than give the residents certainty, Councillor Gibbons wanted the issue to bubble along until the next State election, during which time she will strut the stage as the Liberal candidate for Menai. She and her Liberal cohort Councillor David Redmond did nothing to fix the problem, and it was left to my colleagues the hardworking Labor members representing the seats of Menai and Heathcote. What about the Kirrawee brick pit? Councillor Johns was happy to put a line through 20 months of community consultation and through $500,000 of State, council and Sydney Water money and toss out a successful, unique local partnership just to make a name for himself. The Kirrawee project was put out twice on public exhibition as part of the people's LEP.
It was completed before Johns, the former Labor mayor of Rockdale, made his Lazarus-like reincarnation as a Liberal and headed south across the Georges River in search of a seat in State Parliament. Johns sought to delete the Kirrawee master plan from the people's LEP on 11 April 2005, when he rammed 45 amendments to the LEP through council without notice to Labor or Independent councillors. The planning Minister had no choice but to remove the Kirrawee master plan from the irresponsible clutches of Councillor Johns and his mates on council. I commend the Minister for doing so. By the way, it is no secret that Councillor Johns is out there undermining our colleague the honourable member for Cronulla. Johns is a mate of slippery Sam Witheridge, the Liberal destined for the upper House, who convenes meetings with his co-conspirators at Kevin Schreiber's home. That is if the emails the Liberals leave lying around council chambers are to be believed!
And what about Councillor Kelly Knowles, the Liberal who is eyeing off the seat of Miranda? One would have to wonder why the Liberals appointed her as chair of the council's desalination committee and gave her $100,000 of ratepayers' money to waste when Kurnell is not even in her ward but in the mayor's ward. The cynical might think that she wanted to get a profile before the upcoming State election. But when it comes to planning issues Councillor Knowles takes the cake. Councillor Knowles got her Liberal mates to vote for a two-storey height limit on buildings in her ward, which is C ward—no other ward in the shire, not A ward, B ward, D ward or E ward, just C ward, which just happens to take in much of the State electorate of Miranda.
As one letter in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader of 27 October 2005 asked, "Why C ward and nowhere else? Does this spell a return to the bad old days of open slather development by the previous Liberal council in A, B, D and E wards?" The writer went on to suggest that Councillor Knowles should focus her energies on our shire rather than getting her name on the ballot paper at the 2007 State election. The postscript to all this is that when Councillor Knowles put up this ridiculous divisive notion at a full council meeting, one of her Liberal mates nudged her and pointed out that her move would, to quote the Leader's John Mulcair, "significantly lop the council approved Cronulla Sharks redevelopment... and affect buildings in industrial areas". Clearly we have a councillor who does not know her ward, who wants to discriminate, who puts her ward first to strut the stage as the Liberal candidate for Miranda at the next State election.
Clearly we have a bunch of Liberal councillors running the shire who put planning and our community a very long third behind their political party and their personal ambitions. Good planning and sound consistent decision making are suffering. The shire community is suffering and it is time this mob of recalcitrants was brought to book. On 6 December 2005 in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader the Minister correctly described Sutherland council as "a basket case". For the reasons I have outlined, given the intent of the bill and its provisions, and in the interests of sound planning in my community, I fully support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.08 a.m.]: On behalf of the ratepayers and developers in the electorate of Dubbo I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. I agree in principle to the content of the bill, which is much needed. During my time in local government, from 1999 until September last year when I stood down, I experienced many occasions when development applications were approved by Dubbo City Council without any problems. Council staff cannot decline a development application; only council can do that. On some occasions I saw certain councillors vote in a block on an application either because a staff member had not let them do something the week before or they did not like the developer whose application was before them. A few applications went through against the recommendations of the staff in regard to floodplains. On occasion I went against the recommendations of the staff because I did not think the report was good for the community.
A planning assessment panel should be able to take control. I have no problem with that. I understand that the panel will comprise people who have an understanding of the community. There will not be only one panel for New South Wales, as if one policy fits all. It is a great way to go. However, I would not like to see control taken away from councils when a delay is caused because of a skills shortage of officers on the council. Areas such as Dubbo and Parkes have problems employing planners. At the moment Dubbo City Council is down about seven planners. The current staff are working their butts off and doing the best they can. However, the shortage can delay applications getting through council and the staff are under constant pressure. I would like to think that such issues would be taken into account if a developer complained about a delay in a matter coming before council. There are many reasons for this skills shortage. A lot of consultants in private practice do good work. A lot of residential and industrial development is occurring in my electorate. Despite the drought, people still have confidence in the area. As a result, private consultants are suffering a shortage of skilled staff. So they, like anyone who is after good staff, poach from local government. That is the main reason Dubbo City Council is down—
Mr Frank Sartor: And pays them more money.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL: And pays them more money. You cannot blame them. They live in the community and their children go to school. The opportunity is there and they are happy to accept it, as they should. That is a good reason as to why there are shortages. If there is a problem and the delay is the result of a skills shortage on the council, I would like to think that the Minister would take that into consideration before an opinion is given. Some applications are delayed by councils because of the personal opinions of councillors. They may take it personally against a staff member or a developer. In Dubbo we call them CAVE people—councillors against virtually everything. If it is not their idea, they will not accept it. They come from a political affiliation, but I will not embarrass Opposition members. The staff members might get their back up and say to people, "We are not going to let you do a spot zoning," or "That is not going to happen. We have to do an LEP and peer review it. That will come to council and you will be consulted in 12 months, and perhaps three years down the track that new LEP will be adopted."
We would welcome an announcement from the Minister reducing the amount of planning. It is not right for a staff member to say to people who want to divide their 14-hectare blocks into two seven-hectare blocks—keep one to themselves and sell the other for their retirement—that they can have only a minimum of eight hectares and cannot develop the other six-hectare area because it does not meet council planning. The people will know who I am speaking about when they read this. Twenty-odd people want to do that. They live on a 14-hectare block they bought more than 20 years ago. They want to keep half for themselves and sell off the other half. They are all my age or older—if that is possible—and they want that nest egg. That subdivision was on the eastern outskirts of Dubbo before the one-acre mansions developed to the west of them and before the extension in the east went through. They are caught in a time warp.
Special consideration should be given to this issue. People are speaking with council about it. Why should they be penalised because of a zoning decision made many years ago that is not appropriate now? Someone said it raises salinity issues, but that is nonsense. There is no reason why that spot zoning cannot go through council. As there are 20-odd people affected, council staff and I advised them that it might be a good idea for them to hire a private consultant to speed up the process. Council does not have enough planners to expedite these things. A consultant would cost about $30,000 or $40,000 to review this and make a submission to council. If 23 of them put in about $2,000 each, it could speed up the process. At the moment, that proposal is bogged down as well. Perhaps a panel could speed up developments such as this. It should not take people this long to gain approval for their wishes.
Recently I spoke to a person employed by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR]. He agreed that the panel is a good step forward. It may not be the ideal model, but it is a step in the right direction. The panel is still needed to consider spot zonings, which can take up a lot of DIPNR resources. All aspects of planning need to be considered by the panel. The briefing notes say that the planning administrator cannot be appointed if council fails to comply with obligations under the association or if its performance in planning development matters is unsatisfactory. That is not necessary in any councils in my electorate. They are all wonderfully run and I cannot speak more highly of the general managers and mayors in those areas. The ICAC refers to corrupt conduct by any of the councillors. That needs to be considered, but perhaps that is another story for another day.
The planning assessment panel should not be swayed by the individual over the general wishes of the community. The community is generally the council. When dealing with planning issues the needs of rural areas are different to the needs of urban areas. I am pleased to hear that a panel will be set up in the area in which the complaint is made. One decision should not cover all. A panel may deal with a couple of issues and have a pile of assessments before it. I would like to think that the panel would look at every case individually and not fall into line with a decision given in the previous application. I support the bill.
Mr STEVEN CHAYTOR (Macquarie Fields) [11.17 a.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. This is a bill whose time has come. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Planning on introducing it for consideration by Parliament. This bill should be considered in conjunction with the recently announced economic and financial statement made by the Premier on 23 February. That statement gave a clear indication that the Government rightly would streamline the New South Wales planning system to underpin the competitiveness of the New South Wales economy. This streamlining involves transforming the planning system from a process-driven approach to an outcomes-focused service.
Good planning and environmental outcomes do not require excessive processes or excessive delays. It is important to iron out those delays within the system, because the value of work commenced during the construction period of 2004 and 2005 amounted to more than $9.2 billion, a significant investment in our economy and very important for economic and job growth in our State. It is also important to consider this bill against the interim report, the findings and options by the local government inquiry, "Are Councils Sustainable?" This report, produced a few days ago and dated March 2006, says interesting things about the role of local government in the planning approval process. The report says:
Many councillors are not familiar with environmental planning controls or with their role in the applications of such controls. Public opinion wants to minimise councils' political involvement in the processing of DAs. The public wants councils to give less priority to town planning and DAs and more to basic infrastructure and services, a view shared by many in the State Government.
The report goes on to quote a ministerial task force. It concurs that the development approval process was characterised by a focus on process rather than outcome, inconsistent policies, varying procedures, and timelessness as well as a pervading sense of frustration and conflict. The process generally was not regarded as strategic, did not appear to focus on the quality of development as an outcome and did not encourage development in New South Wales. In many ways that is the current system. It is the reason we must overturn the system or make it far more workable. The bill will achieve that. The report was commissioned by the local councils. The commissioner was Percy Allan.
The report says some interesting things about public opinion. Planning very much is a people process. Of the 912 people who participated in the survey only 8.9 per cent were happy with elected councillors determining development applications. More than 22 per cent wanted the council professional staff to determine development applications. More than 35 per cent wanted an independent panel and more than 25 per cent suggested that councillors should consider development applications after having advice from a panel. These very important findings clearly indicate that the community requires more workable and flexible measures that remove delays and excessive processes from the development application system. The bill will achieve these goals.
The New South Wales Government determines about 400 major development applications annually while local government assesses 125,000 applications annually. In view of the bulk of applications being considered by local government there should be a drive for efficiency at the local government level. To address government and community concerns about the processes and local council delays, the bill will give the Government the ability to increase its focus on local government performance in planning and development matters. The bill empowers the Minister for Planning to move easily and effectively in overseeing the performance of local councils. Importantly, the bill includes more stringent performance reporting by local councils. In many ways the bill lifts the bar, lifts the standard by which development application processes are considered in this State.
The bill increases the flexibility of the Minister for Planning to intervene in cases of unsatisfactory performance by local councils. While existing legislation provides the Minister with the power to appoint a planning administrator where councils do not comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, this bill goes one step further by allowing the Minister to appoint planning assessment panels to exercise any of the planning functions of a council found wanting. I emphasise that last point. The mechanism is very flexible. For instance, if a council delays development applications excessively_more than 60 days_the Minister is able to appoint a panel including representatives with local knowledge to improve efficiency and remove delays in the process. Similarly, particular types of development such as medium density or high density may be looked at specifically by planning assessment panels.
Planning in my electorate—this would apply to all members of Parliament—is a very important function to get right to improve the quality of life for the residents I represent and for whom I am responsible. My electorate in many ways experiences the detrimental effects of bad planning over a 30-year period, particularly the concentration of public housing tenants side by side in particular suburbs. Improved planning processes are evident in my electorate in areas such as Edmondson Park, where we have learned from our mistakes and have an award-winning new development that has the potential for 8,000 residences containing about 30,000 people. This undoubtedly will improve housing affordability and choice, and business growth in the area. It should be acknowledged that in particular parts of my electorate bad planning has resulted in the need for improvement, which will only come through good planning outcomes. There is no doubt that bills such as this will ensure that good planning outcomes become a reality.
In the Premier's recent financial and economic statement he stated that the Minister for Planning will establish a task force of planners and urban designers to work with local councils to prepare city centre plans for each of the five cities identified within the metropolitan strategy. I welcome the fact that Liverpool is one of those cities. I look forward to the city centre plans improving employment and infrastructure within the Liverpool area. The Government is very much committed to employment growth and investment in infrastructure. A task force to identify and appropriately zone employment lands throughout the State, particularly in the Sydney Basin, is also a step in the right direction.
I have had the honour and opportunity to be a councillor of Campbelltown City Council since 1999. Similarly that council has undertaken employment land studies, which undoubtedly have helped planning for job growth in the area. The employment growth in areas such as the Ingleburn and Minto industrial area is a result of good planning outcomes that identify and appropriately zone employment lands. I look forward to similar things happening in the employment zone at the intersection of the M7 and M4, which will assist all of Western Sydney.
Sydney functions in a competitive global economy and our planning system must ensure that Sydney succeeds and stands out in this international market. I emphasise that the mechanisms in the bill apply and will be implemented by the Minister only when a local council has excessive processes and delays. That is, the powers afforded to the Minister are quite flexible but they are flexible to the extent of fixing the problem. Importantly this will lift the standard of local government approval processes throughout the State. It would be acknowledged by this House that the vast majority of New South Wales councils perform very well in their approval process but there is a need to lift the standard and to reform processes to remove excessive delays.
I turn now to section 94 contributions and new growth centres. The bill will strengthen the Government's ability to deliver infrastructure, amenities and services in new land release areas and other areas where there will be co-ordinated growth and development. The changes deliver on the New South Wales Government's commitment to fund important regional infrastructure in the new south-west growth centre. It will ensure that roads, public transport and other important amenities are available when new communities are built. This has important benefits for existing and future residents in the Macquarie Fields, Liverpool and Camden electorates. Special infrastructure contributions will be collected in areas deemed as "special contributions areas", which will initially consist of land in any growth centre declared under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974.
The Minister for Planning will set the level of these contributions, which will reflect the cost of providing infrastructure, services and amenities in the area. As with section 94 contributions, developers will be able to provide the levy as a monetary contribution, as works in kind or by dedicating land. The bill provides that special infrastructure contributions may be spent on the provision of infrastructure outside a special contributions area, but only if the infrastructure and amenities provided arise as a result of development within the special area. This means that important regional facilities such as Liverpool Hospital may benefit directly from contributions raised in the south-west growth centre.
These changes build on the Minister's existing powers that already enable the Minister to fund regional infrastructure through environmental planning instruments, but add improved flexibility and certainty to the process. They also give more transparency and will enable the Government to achieve its dual goal of providing necessary infrastructure to growing areas and maintaining housing affordability. Special infrastructure contributions will be in addition to contributions levied by councils but will be collected only where it is reasonable to impose an additional levy because of the area's infrastructure requirements. For example, special infrastructure contributions will be collected for the major infrastructure and services needed in the south-west growth centre. In this area immediate and significant infrastructure expenditure will be required to benefit the existing and new communities.
This is about planning for growth in a more effective way, especially in areas where public services and amenities are needed before residents and businesses start moving in. This is a real issue in the area I represent, particularly around Prestons and the new release regions in the Liverpool local government area. We should always ensure that public services and amenities are in place before new residences and businesses are established. Importantly, the bill also prevents any double-dipping for the same infrastructure and services. It ensures that the combined total of local and State contributions in these special areas is fair, balanced and reasonable. As I said, that should be done in a way that provides the necessary infrastructure and with an emphasis on the importance of housing affordability. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [11.31 a.m.]: Let's get this straight: The bill has been introduced with zero consultation. Industry and interest groups have lined up to have a whack at the bill. They are knocking down doors to get to the Opposition because the Government will not listen. Some have called for it to be scrapped, others have called for minor amendments. The Coalition reserves the right to review this bill and to move amendments to it in the upper House. My colleagues and I have had trouble finding anyone who supports the bill in its entirety, apart from members of the New South Wales Division of the Australian Labor Party. Everyone, including my colleagues on the other side of the House, is aware that, unlike the Government, the New South Wales Coalition has a wonderful history of, and reputation for, consulting community and interest groups. This legislation is a sign of how little has changed since Bob Carr disappeared. Nothing has changed. It is a different jockey but the same tired old horse.
The Government claims to be a new Government. Some faces on the front bench are new, but they are still members of the old Government. In fact, some other wonderful new faces should be on the front bench. They would do a much better job than many of their colleagues who are already there. There has been zero consultation about the bill; members opposite are riding roughshod over local government. The arrogance with which this legislation has been introduced without consultation is astounding. There has been talk about lack of performance in local government and failure to meet key indicators. If the Government were a local government body, its litany of failures would have ensured that it was sacked years ago. An administrator would have been appointed because its failures are so many and so widespread.
I pay tribute to local councils. It is always easy for the Government with its cost shifting, continual bagging of local government and focus diversion to redirect its troubles to the good people who serve their local communities on councils and the good, hardworking local council staff. At times they work hard under difficult conditions. There are some recalcitrant councils, but the majority of councils and councillors do a fantastic job and they should be commended. I bring to the attention of the House some statistics compiled by the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who was a fantastic shadow Minister for Local Government. He points out that of the 93 members of the Legislative Assembly, 40, or 43 per cent, came from local government. Of the Australian Labor Party members in this place, 28, or 30 per cent, came from local government. Those members have turned their backs on the people who trained them and gave them the opportunity—
Mr Alan Ashton: Where did you come from?
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I came from local government, but unlike honourable members opposite I am not bagging local government. Of the 40 members who came from local government, 70 per cent are Australian Labor Party [ALP]members, 20 per cent are Liberal-Nationals and 12.5 per cent are Independents. Of the 55 Labor members in the Legislative Assembly, 28, or 50.91 per cent, came from local government. Of the 19 Liberal members, 4, or 21 per cent, came from local government. Of the 12 Nationals, 4, or 33.3 per cent came from local government. Of the 31 Coalition members, 8, or 25.8 per cent came from local government, and of the 7 Independent members, 5, or 71.4 per cent came from local government. In the Legislative Council, of the 8 members who came from local government, 62.5 per cent are ALP members, 13.5 per cent are Liberal-Nationals members and 25 per cent are Independents. It is easy to bully and attack local government. That is why I remind the House that we cannot forget where we have come from or the wonderful work local government does. The Local Government Association has made a number of submissions in respect of scrutiny of the bill and the insufficient consultation about it. The association has stated:
Given its importance to the overhaul of the planning system Local Government is strongly of the view that there has been insufficient consultation or scrutiny concerning the Bill. In contrast, the South Australian Sustainable Development Bill 2004, on which many of the provisions of the current Bill are based, has been subject to extensive consultation over a period of three years. It is understood that many of the more contentious South Australian provisions have been deferred to enable further detailed community consultation.
In respect of performance indicators, the association stated:
The Associations question the accuracy and integrity of the data which the Government has used to justify the Bill. Independent research commissioned by LGSA in 2003 established that DA processing times were reasonable, and that where delays occur, these are often the result of factors within the control of the State government and development industry.
It is true that the delays at some councils are unacceptable. The association continued:
In fact, out of more than 3500 DAs analysed, only 4% of applications went before councillors for a decision at a council meeting. In his media release dated 28 February 2006 the Minister stated that "he will work with the Local Government and Shires Associations to establish a new system for reporting on councils' planning performance."
They will look forward to that. More consultation should be undertaken. The association further stated:
While the Associations welcome the Minister's announcement and look forward undertaking further work in this area, at the same time we believe the Minister is placing too much emphasis on the timeframes at which applicants can seek determination by the Court (40 days or 60 days for integrated development) - this is not a timeframe in which a complex application can be realistically assessed.
The Government should also acknowledge that delays in processing DAs are often out of council control such as applicants submitting non-complying and/or incomplete applications; the critical shortage of planning staff and the difficulties councils face in recruiting qualified and experienced planners …
Anyone involved in local government knows that is a major issue that must be addressed. The association goes on to point out a major concern:
The current legislation enables the appointment of administrators under limited circumstances including corruption.
The Bill enables the Minister to appoint a planning administrator or panel under much broader grounds...
This is a very broad and subjective test which enables the Minister to remove a council's planning powers without providing any reasons for doing so. The Minister's second reading speech indicates that the exercise of the power would be subject to principles of administrative law. However, these grounds of appeal are limited to, for example, whether the power was exercised in a "manifestly unreasonable" way.
That is a very difficult and expensive ground on which to challenge a decision. The association does a wonderful job. It goes on to say that the legislation should be amended to:
• Make explicit the criteria to be used by the Minister in determining whether a planning administrator or panel (or both) is to be appointed;
• Require the Minister to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Local Government before a decision is made (as is currently the case) and give reasons for his or her decision;
• Require a formal process of forewarning and/or negotiation with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning a councils' performance before a planning administrator or panel is appointed;
• Consult with Local Government with regard to the membership, appointment and operation of panels; and
• Require the State Government to pay the remuneration and costs and expenses of the planning administrator or panel, with the proviso that where a council has agreed to the appointment or there has been serious corrupt conduct, costs are negotiated between the Minister and council.
I will now address some concerns—
Mr Frank Sartor: Why should the State pay for the non-performance of a council?
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: That is a good question. That is because councils and the people of New South Wales are paying for the non-performance of the State Government. The Government cannot have it both ways. We are currently paying for the failures of the State Government with continual cost shifting. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for the Government. I should have dealt with that a little earlier, but I thank the Minister for raising it. I now move to the concerns of the HIA.
Mr Frank Sartor: Andrew, you promised me 10 minutes.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: There have been so many interruptions and assistance from the Government benches that I am more than happy to provide more information. I appreciate the support of Government members. The HIA is committed to housing affordability and is deeply concerned about the special infrastructure contribution elements of the new planning bill. Those contributions are a new tax on housing. They are inequitable, inflationary and largely set by the Minister without any independent oversight. No equivalent charge exists elsewhere in Australia. New South Wales already has the dubious honour of being the least affordable State, with Sydney in the top 10 of the least affordable cities worldwide.
Over the past 10 years land prices have skyrocketed from $107,000 for a typical family block to more than $460,000. These hikes have been fuelled by constrained land supplies and a massive surge in the number and amount of hidden taxes and charges, for which the Government is well known. Double-dipping, excessive fees and charges and taxes on taxes are delivering a windfall of more than $150,000 to the Government, with its black hole, for every block of land sold to New South Wales families. Thanks to the New South Wales Government an extra $150,000 is added to the price of a house making first homes less affordable for young men and women, young families, young partners and young individuals. That situation needs to be addressed.
The HIA says it is immoral to ask new homebuyers to pay for infrastructure that is enjoyed by the community at large. For example—and I notice the honourable member for Manly is in the Chamber—the people of Manly were not asked to pay for their new ferry. Ferries are a service provided for the community at large and are paid for by the State Government—and rightly so. The HIA says that the Government must get back to doing its job and borrow for necessary infrastructure, allowing for those facilities or services to be paid for over an extended period, not upfront as proposed in the bill. I do not think anyone could disagree with the claim that no-one can borrow as cheaply as government. The HIA states that independent research shows government borrowing is the most efficient and technical means of financing long-lived public infrastructure.
The HIA goes on to say that the proposed rules governing the Minister's State infrastructure levy are inadequate, as is the lack of appeal rights. It also says—and the Coalition agrees—that while there are clearly elements of this bill that are welcome to the industry and interest groups, many of them come at too high a price. The HIA says the bill should be amended to delete any reference to State infrastructure contributions or be rejected outright. This is about consultation, and I have consulted with the association. Owning a family home has always been the centrepiece of the quality of life for Australians. Sydney's affordability problem is directly related to the inflated cost of land. The level of taxes and charges adds significantly to housing costs. These charges now total around 25 per cent of average house purchase costs, or $150,000. They add an extra $1,028 per month to minimum monthly payments and $220,000 in interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan. As legislators we should address that matter.
Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [11.43 a.m.]: I strongly support the bill, which amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments will achieve important planning objectives, including reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications, helping to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and ensuring the timely and efficient supply of infrastructure and services to support growth and development in land release areas and other important sites. These changes build on the significant planning reforms that were undertaken in 2005 in relation to projects of State significance.
The bill is part of the Government's ongoing work to ensure that there is greater certainty and efficiency in all levels of the planning system. The changes to planning law in 2005 ensure the efficient and robust assessment of planning matters that are dealt with by the State. But local councils in New South Wales deal with the vast majority of development applications [DAs] lodged every year, that is, approximately 125,000 per year. The way in which councils deal with their planning and development matters are critical to the housing, employment and investment available to the State of New South Wales. I am particularly interested in the provisions of the bill relating to planning assessment and panels.
The new laws expand on currently available powers and allow more flexibility to target problem areas. The Minister assures me that the powers will only be used as a last resort when a council fails to deal with planning matters efficiently and/or appropriately. Some councils, such as Parramatta City Council, already use independent planning and assessment panels to advise on development applications. The bill provides new powers to the Minister to appoint planning assessment panels to determine development applications. The changes will help the Government respond to community concerns about council performance in planning and development, such as delays or excessive legal costs.
Excessive planning and development legal expenses are incurred by some councils. Such costs take ratepayer funds away from a council's other priorities. The changes proposed in the bill make it easier to address such situations through the appointment of a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions in relation to local planning and development matters. Panels may be appointed in a range of other circumstances, such as a council failing to comply with legal obligations, if the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommends the appointment of a panel or the council agrees to the appointment. Panels will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local decision making and are likely to result in reductions in councils' legal costs.
I know councils are capable of improving their performance in dealing with local planning matters. I base this knowledge on the improvements that I have seen at Parramatta council where I am told that the average DA processing times have fallen from 159 to 87 days. I understand also that during the 2004-05 financial year, the council achieved a 30 per cent reduction on the previous year's planning costs. Some of the changes made by Parramatta to improve the way development applications are handled include establishing two design review panels to provide independent design advice on residential flat buildings, preliminary assessment of all development applications within the first seven days of the application being lodged, allocating more staff to assess domestic applications—less complex applications—where there is a greater expectation of faster approval times and improving the pre-lodgement process to ensure consistency in advice given to potential applicants.
The introduction of those initiatives is an acknowledgement by council that its previous performance was unacceptable to families seeking a determination on minor applications to improve their homes, and unacceptable to businesses seeking to invest in Parramatta and provide employment opportunities to the people in the Parramatta electorate. That acknowledgement by Parramatta council and the decisive action taken to address those issues should be applauded. Unfortunately, not all councils across the State are as progressive and as willing to accept responsibility as Parramatta council.
The actions taken by Parramatta council are consistent with the types of options provided to the Minister in the bill, options to ensure that all councils are minimising delays and costs in the assessment of development applications. The Minister advises me that such powers will be used in a limited manner and that the majority of councils across the State are dealing with their planning matters in an appropriate and responsible way. The Minister also advises me that provision has been made to ensure that panels and administrators have sufficient resources and powers with the council to be effective.
The Government is a strong defender of the role of local government in this State, but the State cannot ignore repeated calls by some that a small minority of councils fail to make timely and reasonable planning decisions. The bill comprises a range of practical and reasonable measures designed to improve efficiency and promote consistency in planning and development across the State. Delays have been increasing in some areas and that is causing frustration to residents wanting answers on simple home renovations and investors who want to create more jobs and prosperity for New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [11.50 a.m.]: There are some components of this legislation, relating to the appointment of panels and planning administrators, to which I am opposed. In his second reading speech the Minister referred to councils going beyond the 40-day statutory requirement relating to deemed non-consent, when matters can be referred to the Land and Environment Court. One size does not fit all in councils. My electorate takes in the Manly local government area and a large part of ward B of Warringah Council. There are specific issues relating to topography, privacy, views and so on. It is impossible for councils to comply with the 40-day limit.
There needs to be recognition that people putting in applications for fairly modest extensions may push the envelope, and the process of negotiation and compromise that takes place extends the time taken for the development application [DA] process and the time in which consent is given. Often the applicants will complain about how long the process has taken, but sometimes the fault lies with them. There is also the issue of local residents wanting the amenity of their area protected and to have input into the sorts of developments and the scale of development that takes place. That is all part of the local democratic process and part of democracy as such.
It seems to me the State Government treats the councils in much the same way as the Federal Government treats the States, that is, there is a move to centralise more and more powers in their own hands. It also seems starkly evident to me that under this legislation there is an increasing encroachment by Department of Planning on the Department of Local Government and the area for which the Minister for Local Government is responsible. I have long been concerned about the performance of councils and councillors, and how that can be dealt with. I do not believe this legislation resolves that. The issue is how to get better performance in-house in councils rather than imposing external controls. I have long argued that an internal Ombudsman is needed, perhaps for one council but certainly for groups of councils.
Merely looking at a timeline is totally inadequate. It may well be that some councils have a fast consent timeline but that may not necessarily reflect that they are doing a good job. Rather, it could be they have a "Let her rip" mentality and through it goes. Two or three months ago I had a meeting with the Minister for Local Government and put to him that his department needed to give more support to instituting internal Ombudsmen in councils. His response was to foreshadow this legislation and point out that the Minister would be able to appoint administrators or panels as a solution. I do not think that is the solution. We need to be looking at, first, whether a person can examine complaints and council processes at a local level and at arm's length from councils. That would mean that people would have a local remedy but it would also be a means of keeping councils on their toes without the Minister having to get involved.
A number of local councils have been sacked or have had their propriety and performance questioned. Over the years the Department of Local Government, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal have been fairly ineffective in coming to terms with all sorts of goings-on at councils. The way around that is to have a local Ombudsman who can examine complaints against councillors and the behaviour of council staff officers in the way they are processing DAs or anything else.
Development applications are the most critical matter for many people and it is obviously the area where there can be mischief, corruption or wrongdoing. It is much better if there is a mechanism or structure in place to deal with those problems at source, rather than waiting to see the results of an inquiry and the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Planning stepping in. We need to fix the problem at source. In the years I have been a member of this place there have been no amendments to statutes—although I have tried to amend the Local Government Act—and no legislation that have dealt adequately with this issue. This legislation does not deal with it adequately either. It gives the Minister the power to step in and impose a planning regime on councils.
I do not support that. These matters should be dealt with in-house through structures set in place at council level so there is a systemic improvement in the performance of councils across the State. That is better than the Government interfering or making appointments when the Minister perceives there is a problem in a particular council. He may miss all sorts of council improprieties in other areas. An internal Ombudsman could undertake a professional and factual investigation and ensure the resolution of complaints at community level. He retains independence and impartiality, particularly on a regional basis. It is a cost-effective system because matters can be dealt with locally and it gives the community a focus for their complaints about the way DAs are being processed, or the time being taken to process them, and the role of council staff or councillors.
I believe councillors should be removed from the DA process, as much as is practicable. They are at moral risk. That is particularly noticeable with small councils. Councillors know lots of people in the community and they are at risk of pressure from friends, friends of friends, relatives, or whatever, to approve or oppose development applications. Councillors should not be put at moral risk in that way. The job of councillors is to provide policy guidelines and put structures in place, including independent panels, to ensure the council does its business in a transparent and predictable way. That is what I believe should happen. Once again, it should be up to the local council to put those mechanisms and processes in place. That is still democratic because if it does not work, the council as the policy-making body and the councillors as the policy makers can then rectify or modify that arrangement so that the outcome is fair and equitable for all members of the community.
The notion of looking at the timeframe in which approvals should be made is simplistic and depends on whether it is a large-scale commercial DA or a residential DA. In my electorate the community wants quality, it wants its urban amenity protected and it expects the council and councillors to put mechanisms in place to do that. If the process takes a bit longer, so be it, because I believe it is the wish of my community to protect the amenity of the area from inappropriate development and overdevelopment—not non-development. This bill gives the Minister too much power to interfere in the processes of local government. It should be up to councils to make these decisions at the local level. That is what democracy is all about.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [12 noon]: It gives me great pleasure to support the bill and recognise the importance of the amendments to my electorate of Drummoyne. I certainly welcome the introduction of this bill, which will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments build on planning reforms that were undertaken in 2005 to slash red tape on development, encourage jobs and investment in New South Wales and ensure that major projects in New South Wales can be assessed and determined in the most efficient and robust manner.
The key amendments will achieve important planning objectives, which include reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications [DAs]—very important measures. Recently the Minister had to intervene in the City of Canada Bay Council with respect to Breakfast Point to facilitate residential and commercial space for up to 5,000 people. Hundreds of DAs were being held up in the Land and Environment Court in cases between council and developer and 700 jobs were being jeopardised. It is very important to reduce delays and assessment costs.
The bill will also help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and to ensure the timely and efficient supply of infrastructure and services to support growth and development in land release areas and other important sites. Amongst other things the bill will ensure that the administration and collection of development contributions by local councils are fair and reasonable. For many decades local councils have been able to seek levies on new developments. These levies should be used to help pay for services required for new residents, such as parks or community facilities, or to offset the impact of a development.
The New South Wales Government is concerned that the local development contributions system is not working as effectively as it should. For instance, there has been some criticism of local councils with respect to the way in which some contributions have been spent, including criticism that levies for funding the works arguably should be serviced through the general rate revenue. Last year the Government made some changes to give councils increased flexibility in the collection and spending of development contributions, and I supported those changes. This allowed them to spend more easily the hundreds of millions of dollars in existing contributions sitting in accounts and to negotiate voluntary agreements with developers.
Despite these reforms I am concerned that some councils still do not effectively utilise their collected section 94 funds. The electorate of Drummoyne contains three local government areas—Ashfield, Canada Bay and Strathfield. All those councils enjoy my support and I am always there to help when they need my assistance. But in relation to contributions, especially section 94 contributions in the Canada Bay area, which has experienced significant development with industry moving away from the foreshore, returning the foreshore to the community, for three years I have tried to extract information from council about the section 94 contributions and where they will be used.
For three years that council has avoided answering those questions or been unable to clarify the situation. I am sure that this bill will go a long way towards helping me, as a State member of Parliament, to inform my community in the new estates and surrounding suburbs about how much money has been set aside and for what purpose it should be used. Residents have been waiting years for upgrades to be undertaken and they are extremely frustrated. Footpaths and roads are cracked and, despite commitments being made to upgrade facilities, nothing has been done.
I welcome the bill, which will build on the planning reform work undertaken in 2005 to improve the development contributions system, and that will be a good thing for residents. Any measure to secure infrastructure for residents is to be commended. The Minister for Planning will now have the ability to intervene when legitimate concerns are raised about a council's contributions plan. This could include concerns about the purpose for which the money is collected or the contribution amount. I am sure that my residents look forward to the section being implemented.
The amendments will help to ensure that contributions plans are in place to complement the timing of developments and will prevent contributions being used for inappropriate purposes. It will also ensure a reasonable total of local contributions. This is important because many of the estates in my area were built 5 to 10 years ago yet money still has not been spent on infrastructure. The problem is that the cost of projects then blows out. The proposed law allows the Minister to approve, amend or repeal a contributions plan. It also requires councils to provide the Minister with a copy of the plan as soon as practicable after it has been adopted. I welcome this wholeheartedly as I have had immense problems with obtaining these details. The Minister advises me that he expects these provisions to be used only in exceptional circumstances. I call on my councils to do the right thing so that the Minister will not have to intervene.
Importantly for councils, it will not be possible to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against contributions determined under a contributions plan if that plan is made or amended by, or is at the direction of, the Minister. However, the bill does not affect the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court on certain administrative and technical matters. Provisions relating to local section 94 contributions are important to me and my electorate, particularly in light of new housing in the area. I support also other important components of the bill that are part of the Government's ongoing work to ensure there is greater certainty and efficiency within all levels of the planning system.
In relation to reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications, we all know that local councils in New South Wales deal with the majority of DAs, with approximately 125,000 lodged each year. The majority of applications are not from the big developers but, rather, from mum and dad investors, who just want to renovate their homes or provide better housing. Despite the Government cutting red tape, some councils still continue to drag their feet on development applications for no good reason. I regularly see constituents frustrated at councils not approving their DAs or not informing them of what is wrong with their applications.
The bill provides a new power to appoint planning assessment panels. Some councils already use independent planning and assessment panels to advise on development applications, so we already have a precedent. The new laws expand on currently available powers and allow more flexibility to target problem areas. The Minister assures me that the powers will only be used as a last resort when a council is failing to deal with planning matters efficiently. That is an important point.
Concerns have been expressed with respect to excessive planning and development legal expenses incurred by some councils. The legal bill for New South Wales councils jumped by 40 per cent to over $33 million in the two years to 2003-04. This is taking ratepayer funds away from councils' other priorities. Residents come to my office on a weekly basis after having received letters from council stating that what they want upgraded is not a priority. Councils should stop wasting money on legal battles and spend the money on infrastructure, where it should be spent. If a council is failing in its planning and development responsibilities, the Minister for Planning will be able to appoint a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions.
The new law will strengthen the Government's ability to deliver infrastructure, amenities and services in new land release areas and other areas where there will be co-ordinated growth and development. It will ensure that roads, public transport and other important amenities are available when new communities are built, rather than 5 or 10 years later, as occurs in certain sections of my electorate. The Minister for Planning can create further special contribution areas. This could include corridors or centres earmarked for housing growth in regional strategies. A new fund will be established to collect the regional levies.
The proposed law states that the funds cannot be used to pay for general government funding. The funds must be used for the provision of infrastructure and administrative expenses, and will only be collected where it is reasonable to impose an additional levy because of the area's infrastructure requirements. The bill also prevents any double-dipping to the same infrastructure and services, and ensures that the combined total of local and State contributions in these special areas is fair, balanced and reasonable.
The bill also contains provisions relating to development control plans [DCPs], which reinforce recent initiatives to provide greater certainty for communities and the development industry. Specifically, the amendments will enable the Minister to direct a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP. If the council fails or is unable to act as directed, the Minister may make, amend or revoke the development control plan. At present, councils can use DCPs to introduce onerous and inappropriate controls without sufficient public scrutiny, and at times in conflict with other planning and development objectives.
The community expects the Government to prevent councils from implementing regulatory requirements that have not been properly analysed. However, at the moment the Government is powerless to do so. In conclusion, the amending bill contains a range of sensible measures designed to promote consistency in planning and development. The bill also addresses concerns relating to the tardiness of councils, which is causing frustration for many residents, ranging from people wanting answers on simple home renovations to investors who want to create more jobs and investment in local areas. For my electorate, the bill addresses my concerns about the delays in provision of local infrastructure, which my residents and I consider to be of utmost importance. These reforms are necessary, and I commend the Minister for reforming the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [12.10 p.m.]: Since the Government introduced its so-called planning reforms in 2004 it has repeatedly attacked people's hard-won right to be involved in determining the form and future of their cities, suburbs and living environments. This bill is anti-democratic and anti grass roots involvement in planning, and I believe it is rampant hypocrisy from the State Government. This Government squeals whenever the Federal Government overrides its planning controls—as it should do; the airport is just the most recent example—or interferes in the State's share of taxation. But with this bill, and other recent planning reforms, the State Government kicks local government in the same way—overriding its ability to plan for local communities, imposing costs and restricting revenue. It continues the trend of the three tiers of government each blaming and kicking the other tiers, rather than focusing on their own areas of responsibility. People are heartily sick of this, and I predict that their dissatisfaction will make itself known at future elections.
This is reminiscent of the bad old days of the Askin Government, when a junta of big developers and Government Ministers controlled all development and planning, and shocking developments that were not in the public interest were negotiated under the table in the Minister's office. I do not see how this bill aligns with ICAC's recommendations to address corruption in development applications, and I am seriously concerned about the risk of corruption inherent in this bill. I support the calls of the Local Government Association of New South Wales, the Shires Association of New South Wales, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] and the Environment Liaison Office, representing amongst others the Nature Conservation Council, the Total Environment Centre and the Australian Conservation Foundation, for this bill to be substantially amended.
I strongly oppose this bill, which allows the Minister for Planning to intervene in local government at whim, with draconian, unrestricted powers to override democratically elected local councils in planning for local communities. People elect local councils to plan for their communities and expect them to have the capacity to do so. The powers of the democratically elected council, and the community's ability to participate in the planning process, should not be usurped. Good planning with community consultation and effective determination of development applications can go hand in hand, as shown by the city of Sydney, despite the huge volume of applications and the major projects involved. If the Minister believes that councils are too slow in dealing with applications, the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Local Government should provide the support needed for councils to become more efficient. The should help them with the tools they might need to become as efficient as many other councils. Community input into planning decisions was won through the enactment of the progressive Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which was brought in by the Labor Government in 1979. Now we have this Labor Government winding back the clock and reversing those important reforms.
Unlike the Minister for Planning, local government councillors are answerable to their local communities every day, and are required to consider each and every public submission when drafting planning controls or considering development applications. The Minister in his second reading speech gave the assurance that "the Government is a strong defender of the role of local government in the State". One objective of this bill is to "help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls", yet the Minister did not even discuss these proposals with the Local Government and Shires Associations, NCOSS or the general community about what he describes as a "radical overhaul" of the New South Wales planning system. I share the view of the Local Government and Shires Associations and NCOSS that developers should be required to contribute to essential regional infrastructure, including public amenities and services, transport and affordable housing, and environmental conservation, especially in growth areas.
However, like them, I am concerned about the free rein for the Minister for Planning to determine special contribution areas, set the level and nature of special infrastructure contributions, and give these contributions to government departments for the provision of infrastructure, which may not even be in the special contribution area. This bill provides no clear mechanism to ensure that contributions levied are used for specific infrastructure; nor is there any requirement that the Minister even identify the specific infrastructure for which the levies are intended. I support the proposal by NCOSS that the Minister should be required to take into account any existing or draft infrastructure plan, and consult with the relevant local council or development corporation when requiring the levy of special infrastructure contributions. It is particularly important that there be clear, enforceable guidelines to limit ministerial discretion, as the bill specifically excludes any appeal of the Minister's decision.
The Minister could declare a special contributions area wherever and whenever major development is proposed, and set any level of development contributions, delivering another planning cash cow to the New South Wales Government. The level of ministerial discretion lacks transparency and accountability, and risks corruption, particularly when major political parties continue to accept donations from developers. I support the Local Government Association's call for the bill to be amended to enforce detailed scrutiny and oversight of money paid into and out of the proposed special contributions area infrastructure fund, and to include a process to appeal the Minister's determination in the court. The bill proposes serious restrictions on local government's capacity to levy developer contributions to provide necessary local infrastructure for growing communities, including local roads, parks and community facilities, particularly in special contribution areas.
Given local government's limited capacity to raise revenue, developer contributions payable under section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are essential to ensure the provision of adequate local services and infrastructure. The Minister will be able to direct the council to make, amend or revoke any development contributions plan in any time or manner specified, without giving any reasons or justification for the direction. Through section 94, the State Government already places stringent limits on the amounts and nature of contributions councils can collect from developers. Should a council not comply with the Minister's direction, the Minister will be able to make, amend or revoke a development control plan directly, and he will not be subject to regulation.
This bill further erodes the original intention of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by providing the Minister with the extraordinary power to direct a council to make, amend or revoke a development control plan, and to do so himself if the council concerned does not comply with his direction. However, the bill does not require the Minister to provide any reasons for his decisions; nor does it detail in what circumstances the Minister may make such a direction. There are inherent risks of corruption in such extraordinary discretion. The Minister already has the power to determine so-called State significant developments; now he is trying to wrestle the determination of local planning policy, as well as development applications, from local government. Development control plans are drafted and endorsed by councils in accordance with the wider planning context of local environmental plans, which are already approved by the State Government. The proposed changes have the opportunity for the Minister, who may not have any connection to or understanding of the local area, to step in and make changes to the planning powers of council without the local context needed to fully understand complex local planning issues.
Development control plans should be the responsibility and the domain of local government, where local decisions with a local context can be made and residents can trust that planning controls are there to protect them and not to favour developers. I support the Local Government and Shires Associations' recommendation that the bill be amended to include provisions to make explicit the criteria a Minister must use when deciding to direct a council over a development control plan; require a formal process of forewarning, consultation and negotiation with the council concerned before such a direction is issued; and require the Minister to comply with all the relevant planning legislation and regulation when making, amending or directing a council to make or amend a development control plan.
This bill provides for the Minister to appoint a planning administrator or panel to carry out any or all of a council's planning functions, including drafting planning controls and its consent authority role. Currently, the Minister may appoint a planning administrator if a council is shown to be failing its legislated planning duties or if the ICAC so recommends. Under the bill, the Minister will be able to appoint an administrator or planning panel if he is of the opinion that a council's planning performance is unsatisfactory in timeliness or in any other way. There are no criteria that the Minister must consider, no steps he must take to help a council address planning difficulties before appointing a panel or an administrator, and no restrictions on when or how the Minister may intervene in this way.
A council whose functions are carried out by a panel or an administrator must reimburse the Government for the remuneration, costs and expenses of the administrator or panel. The Minister has power to exempt the council from these costs or to resolve disputes over reimbursement. The council must also provide staff, facilities and documents to the panel or the administrator, and there is a penalty for any individual obstructing the panel or administrator.
The bill also makes changes to the draconian, undemocratic Redfern-Waterloo Authority legislation, which I opposed when it went through this House and which is very much opposed by all the people living in the Redfern-Waterloo area. A meeting just last Saturday showed the feeling of the community about the draconian nature of excising an area from a democratically elected body. It is quite outrageous. Again I condemn the Government for that legislation.
The bill will allow the Minister for Planning to delegate to the Minister for Redfern-Waterloo his functions—which is interesting, as it is the same person—as consent authority for State significant sites in the operational area. The Minister for Redfern Waterloo can then delegate this authority to the Redfern Waterloo Authority, a member of its staff or the city of Sydney. The bill will allow the Minister for Redfern Waterloo to acquire Crown land vested in government departments, other Ministers or other statutory bodies but not from council. The bill amends the Redfern-Waterloo Act to reflect the proposed changes to provide for special infrastructure contributions. I am concerned this indicates that the Minister intends to use unfettered powers to determine special infrastructure areas to get hold of developer contributions in this area as well. It is a very sad day for the democratic process that members of this House seem to have forgotten the communities they are elected to represent. They are supporting or planning to support this legislation to remove the people's ability to contribute to planning in their local communities.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.21 p.m.]: Planning and development issues can be frustrating. They can be frustrating for home renovators, as my wife is experiencing at present, they can be frustrating for councils, and no doubt they can be frustrating for the State Government. That frustration stems from the need to try to balance all the issues involved in planning and development, whether it is in the home, the street, the community or across the State. My concerns about this legislation centre on that issue of balance—the balance that requires owners to be mindful of neighbours, requires individual interest to be balanced against the public interest, and requires local needs to be measured against State and city requirements. So, my concern is centred on the balance in this legislation, principally in relation to the power it gives to the Minister to appoint planning and assessment panels and a planning administrator.
As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, there will be four criteria on which planning and assessment panels will be able to be appointed. They can be appointed, for instance, if the council has not complied with its obligations under the environmental planning legislation. They can be appointed if the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommends their appointment because of serious corruption by councillors; or they can be appointed if councils agree, because some councils may recognise the need for such a panel to be appointed. Those three powers are largely unexceptional. The issue here, as the shadow Minister for Planning indicated, relates to the fourth category in which the planning and assessment panels can be appointed, and that relates to where the council is failing in its planning and development responsibilities.
Similarly, in relation to the planning administrator, the Minister is able to do so currently if council has not complied with its obligations under planning legislation, or if ICAC recommends it. But like the power to appoint planning and assessment panels, power is going to be given to the Minister to appoint planning administrators where a council is not performing. My concern—a concern reflected in the comments of the shadow Minister, and a concern that we hope will be the centre of the upper House debate—is the absence of any form of criteria about the use of that power. What are required are fair, relevant benchmarks against which any Minister's use of those powers can be measured. Amendments will be moved in the upper House. That is where the crux of this debate will occur. We are prepared to allow this bill to pass through this House to the upper House, particularly given that the Government has a majority in this House. I cannot support a carte blanche being given to any Minister for Planning, whether it be the current Minister or his predecessors—and I will say something about them in a moment—or those who may be appointed in the future on either side of politics. Not only are no criteria set out but the ability of residents or councils to appeal those decisions has been severely curtailed.
This is not a personal matter about any individual Minister. It certainly is not personal about the current Minister. What is personal to me is the community I represent. I believe Ku-ring-gai council will be the first council subjected to these provisions should they get through Parliament unfettered. It may well be the first council affected even if legislation gets through Parliament with agreed criteria. The Department of Planning has its gun locked and loaded, in shooting parlance, and my concern is that, without specific criteria, after the passage of this legislation the Minister will be able to fire it at will at the community I represent.
I understand the Minister's and the department's frustration with Ku-ring-gai council. Residents have their own frustration with Ku-ring-gai council at times, as has the local member, as I have made clear in this House before. What is most frustrating to me in the saga that has represented planning in Ku-ring-gai for the past six years or so that I have been concerned is the repeated failure of successive Ministers or departmental officials to ever take the Ku-ring-gai perspective in these matters. They never accept any responsibility. They never talk about the shifting goalposts, what I once described, when Ku-ring-gai was first being asked for its residential strategy, as being asked to sit a maths test without being told what the questions were and when you submitted your answers you were told you got it wrong but you were not told why.
Mr Frank Sartor: You were at meetings. You know we gave them lots of advice.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: No, I am talking about the pre Frank Sartor times. I remain of the view I have publicly stated. Notwithstanding my grave concerns about this legislation, I think that with the current Minister, who has a better background in local government than some of his recent predecessors, Ku-ring-gai has a better chance of achieving a fair outcome. But this is not about the current Minister. I am talking about dealings between Ku-ring-gai council and the Department of Planning over 11 years that have been characterised by shifting goalposts, mixed messages, delayed decision-making and, quite frankly—and it may be unparliamentary and if it is no doubt I will be picked up—ministerial lies, lies by the former Minister for Planning Dr Refshauge, and lies by former Minister for Planning Dianne Blunder, the honourable member for Mulgoa.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I caution the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the language he uses.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I will not call her Dianne Blunder again. There has never been any acknowledgement, including under the current planning administration, of any improvements at Ku-ring-gai council. I am the first to say that in the past Ku-ring-gai council has been absolutely hopeless. It has let down its community and has created the sorts of pressures that have led to much of the development breakouts in areas like North Turramurra. Its behaviour during the last council, in particular, created the conditions in which a former Minister for Planning could assume direct control over six sites in Ku-ring-gai and deliver to our municipality some of the ugliest looking housing I am yet to see, particularly that development at Warrawee.
In September 2003 the residents of Ku-ring-gai voted overwhelmingly to send a strong message to former councillors. The place was cleared out. A clear message was sent to councillors to get on with the job, to work their way through with the State Government to try to ensure we saw an end to this situation. In the new council, seven of the 10 councillors were new. It was an avalanche by anyone's reckoning. Martin Pakula never felt the voters' wrath that was experienced in Ku-ring-gai in September 2003. The new council, under the new mayor and the new deputy mayor, sought to make progress. Has that progress ever been acknowledged by the Department of Planning? Absolutely not. There has been no attempt to do so. When you do not get that encouragement, when you do not get past Ministers' commitments fulfilled, behaviour reverts to type.
I am the parent of young children and I know that when parents are inconsistent in their behaviour the children never learn the lessons of how to behave. In recent months at Ku-ring-gai council there has been an outbreak of the sorts of antics, politicking and tactics that put public interest last. This Minister and his predecessor, the community and the State member abhor these things. But why would there not be a return to that sort of behaviour when at no stage will the Minister, or his department in particular, which has been dealing with the issue for 11 years, acknowledge that, especially from 2003 on, Ku-ring-gai council started to get its act together? Not acknowledging this creates the conditions that will enable the Minister one way or the other, with these powers defined or without these powers, to ride roughshod over the desires of the Ku-ring-gai community. What are those desires? The people are willing to continue to carry their fair share of this city's population growth but without damaging the intrinsic residential character of our suburbs, the character defined by homes on large blocks, with parks, gardens, schools and all the wonderful things that make a dormitory suburb and community such as Ku-ring-gai.
Ku-ring-gai is surrounded by magnificent national parks. Why on earth would we want to destroy the sort of character that continues to attract people to this part of Sydney? I live in a pocket of Roseville. Most of my neighbours have come from the inner west. Many of them had not previously had an association with Ku-ring-gai. They were attracted by the open space, the public and private schools, and the tree canopy. The planning policies pursued by this Government threaten that. No-one has an objection about the highway corridor. With the level of traffic these days it is very hard to live adjacent to highways. No-one has an issue with that; the issues relate to the interface between the highway zoning and the rest of the suburb, and preserving the residential amenity and character that have made Ku-ring-gai unique. We do not want it to end up like other parts of Sydney. It is frustrating that at no stage will the Department of Planning say to Ku-ring-gai council, "You have started down the path to improvement. We will continue to work with you." As the honourable member for Bligh says, instead the unsatisfactory approach is always to use sledgehammers to crack nuts.
The second issue I raise in relation to the bill relates to the development contributions known as special infrastructure contributions. The Minister says that they will be designed so that new growth areas have the services and infrastructure required to exist. I ask the Minister: What about providing a similar commitment—not a contribution but a similar commitment—to those areas such as Ku-ring-gai that have been subject to this Government's medium-density planning policies whereby populations are being increased without any attempt by the Government, over 11 years, to match infrastructure or services to deal not only with existing problems of the current population but also with the expectations of future populations?
The Minister has a blank cheque approach to planning. On the one hand, he wants to raise densities. On the other hand, he is not prepared to spend any money to match infrastructure and services to ensure that they meet the demands of existing and future populations. The bill seeks to load greater contributions again onto green fields sites. It will raise the price of those sites. Last week I talked to the Urban Development Institute of Australia about the sorts of average contributions on Sydney housing blocks in the electorate of Macquarie Fields and other areas that are expanding. The figure averages $50,000. In many areas that means that buying acreage for redevelopment is no longer feasible. That is providing greater incentive for medium-density development to take place closer to the city in areas such as I represent.
As I said before, Ku-ring-gai is happy to share the load in relation to Sydney's population growth, but the Government has never sought to provide infrastructure and services in Ku-ring-gai to cater for existing demands let alone the increases with extra residents. In the green fields sites homeowners are expected to bear the cost. At most question times the Premier talks about getting his fair share of the goods and services tax. The residents of northern Sydney pay more than their fair share of State taxes and revenue. The Premier wants to ensure that all GST revenues come back to New South Wales, an argument that Peter Debnam on day one described as the Queensland bludger syndrome. On the same argument that the Premier uses, there is also justice and equity in ensuring that North Shore residents gain some benefits from the taxes they pay. In railways, water, roads or other infrastructure problems exist with current population levels. The Government has no plans to ensure that infrastructure provided by States will be there for increased populations.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Minister for Planning will come to order. It is disorderly to speak with people in the gallery.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I simply do not understand why we cannot deal with this problem. I hope that the pragmatism of the Minister for Planning will result in some of these issues being addressed. The first action of the Iemma Government in splitting up the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources—an organisation that of itself was meant to ensure that there was a co-ordinated approach to planning—does not leave me with great expectations about what will happen. My concerns are about the unfettered power, the lack of criteria being given to the Minister in appointing planning and assessment panels and appointing planning administrators. Whatever happens in this place, those powers in one form or another, under this bill or future legislation, will be used against my community and this will not be in the interest of Ku-ring-gai or the public. I am also concerned that, unless the Minister starts to address the need for infrastructure and services, whatever he delivers to my area and the rest of Sydney will simply ensure that this city is a far less inhabitable and attractive city as we move into future decades. I do not believe he wants that. I certainly do not want it and neither do my constituents and the rest of the population of Sydney. They want leadership, proper planning and co-ordinated planning. Above all, criteria should be contained in the bill. [Time expired.]
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.36 p.m.]: As indicated by the shadow Minister, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill will be dealt with in more detail in the upper House, where the Opposition, if supported by members of the crossbench, has the necessary numbers. In this Chamber it is almost a pointless exercise because the Government continuously steamrolls over the Opposition. It happens daily. Yesterday legislation was introduced and moved through all stages. Yet it went to a critical issue that the Opposition would have liked to have discussed. For that reason I simply express my concerns about the bill and hope to see it dealt with in more detail in the upper House. The bill could be more properly named the "Trust me, I'm Frank bill". All the planning entitlements of local communities may end up with this Minister—entirely in his hands or at least in avenues which are entirely at the mercy of the Minister.
The Government is not to be trusted. Sadly, over the past decade the Government has failed in every avenue of infrastructure. The honourable member for Bligh pointed out that the Minister has brought to him a number of powers. The power in regard to Redfern-Waterloo is just one of them. He also has power over sites of State and regional significance. In bringing each of the powers to himself he has been driven by his belief that he can do a better job than local government, local communities. In some cases local communities, through their local councils, may not always get it right. But the fact is that local communities are entitled to be masters of their own destinies. That is the whole purpose of local government. Some local councils frustrate us from time to time—perhaps I will mention a couple of those frustrations in a few minutes—but the big issue for this Parliament to determine is whether those frustrations of local councils and local communities should translate into this Minister or any subsequent Minister having the power to steamroll over the top of local communities.
In Warringah we have already experienced the negative aspects of this Government's planning policies. For a decade we have put up with the push for medium density. As the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai pointed out earlier, most communities are prepared to wear their fair share of development to accommodate Sydney's increasing population. However, they are entitled to expect that their views will be taken into account and resources will be provided by the State Government to ensure that they have a reasonable quality of life. For a decade we on the northern beaches have seen more and more density development foisted on Warringah and Pittwater. The former member for Pittwater spoke on this issue a number of times, and I have heard the honourable member for Manly talk about it occasionally.
While that increasing density has occurred, no money has been spent on infrastructure. Our roads are still unbelievably bad. We have had an ongoing, now decade-old, debate about funding for hospitals, but no money has been made available. The money is disappearing from budgets for the police, medical services, roads and all the other ancillary services, but this Government is not shoring us up as we play our part in the community equation. We are prepared to accept some increase in density, but we expect something back. Given that we have nothing, perhaps the Government can understand our lack of faith in it and in the Minister responsible, particularly now. As I said, the problem is that Warringah has experienced a massive increase in medium-density developments. The council has from time to time been on the receiving end of criticism about that, but it has not been the council's problem. It has been a problem driven by this Government's medium-density development plans. Coming on the back of other changes to legislation, which have put more and more power into the Minister for Planning's hands, we now have yet another bill that seeks to give him even more power.
The issue that particularly concerns me is the fact that the Minister can in some unfettered way, without any applicable criteria or yardstick to consider, simply determine that a council is "failing in its planning and development responsibilities". Minister Sartor will be able to appoint a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions. That is one of the most horrific provisions in any legislation I have seen in this place, and I have seen some pretty horrific legislation introduced by the Labor Party. On this occasion the Minister is saying, "Trust me, I'm Frank." That could be said by whoever is the Minister on the day, but this legislation is being driven by Frank Sartor. The Minister must understand that as representatives of our communities we need to know that criteria are in place, steps must be taken and yardsticks applied to determine whether a council is failing. Of course, that is a subjective decision.
We all know that when a council runs over the 40-day limit it can be frustrating and when councils try to stop developments from proceeding that that can be a problem. However, is it failing in a sense that would justify a Minister's stepping in and removing the local council's democratic entitlement to make decisions for local communities? I completely agree with the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai that local communities know what is best for them. It is impossible for a Minister in the brass and mahogany club of Macquarie Street to make decisions about what affects Warringah, Ku-ring-gai or the far-flung parts of the State. The Minister is going a step too far. I find that objectionable and I am sure my local community agree.
This has not come out of the blue; as I said, it has come on the back of other legislation that this Minister has introduced. We are living under the threat of a development being given approval by Minister Sartor without any consultation with the community, despite the fact that the community has raised issues and expressed concerns about it. Only yesterday a resident came to speak to me about section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Residents could not believe it when they read that one can go to the Land and Environment Court, have an order made, and if the developer wants to change aspects of the development, he or she can go back to the local council under section 96AA—while satisfying concern criteria—and ask that the development be changed. Residents are left in the lurch again. Who introduced that legislation? Labor. It is another way around local communities having their say.
This Government has had a history of stuffing up planning requirements. I do not know whether the Minister is aware, but private certifiers are causing havoc all over the place. I am not opposed to them, but I am opposed to the way in which they are working and to the lack of direction and guidelines that the Government has put in place for them. I have an email dated 12 December 2005 that the Peter Macdonald, the Mayor of Manly, sent to various councils. It states:
Rick……I've spoken to the GM about this matter and am insisting that Council take action and not rely on the private certifier. I have little faith in private certifiers to ensure compliance. I believe there is an order to stop work likely……Peter
Mayors all over New South Wales and communities have concerns about private certifiers. That is often because the Government, in its rush to push things through—as it did some years ago and just as it is trying to do today—got it wrong. It did not establish the right framework for private certifiers. A development on Pittwater Road, Brookvale, has similar problems. Private certifiers gave approval for a development and it went to the Land and Environment Court, which ordered that airconditioning units be installed in the basement. A variation to the application is back before the council for approval to allow for individual airconditioners to be installed throughout the building. Private certifiers, their relationship with councils and the framework within which they operate should have been addressed by the Government rather than rushing forward with legislation.
This legislation is part of the continuum of this Government's incompetence. At the end of the day, local communities own their communities. The people of Warringah own our community, the people of Manly own theirs, and the people of Pittwater own theirs. They should be entitled to determine what development is reasonable in their local areas. They should not have the sword of Damocles hanging over their head, knowing that the switch is in Frank Sartor's hands. We want to know that we can make decisions. As frustrating as it sometimes is dealing with our local councils, it would be a much better solution than what the Minister is offering.
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [12.48 p.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation that determines the quality of life in the Sutherland shire and the rest of the State. I was sorry that during his contribution the honourable member for Miranda sought to use derogatory terms about various people. We should not be talking about personalities; we should be talking about principles when we address a piece of landmark legislation. He made extensive reference to a mayoral minute. I seek the leave of the House to table that minute.
Leave not granted.
I thought honourable members would be assisted in this debate if they had it in front of them. Nevertheless, I will refer to the minute because it is something the Minister for Planning will need to address in his reply to the debate. The local council said that through the local environmental plan [LEP] the State would impose higher densities on the shire. The honourable member for Miranda said that the councillors are against public housing, but there is no evidence of that in any of the documentation relating to planning. On the contrary, the council is concerned that townhouses are not placed in low-density areas where private housing would not be placed either.
The council is saying that we should have a level playing field. It is saying that in relation to town planning government agencies should not expect to get special privileges at the expense of the public interest. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will see whether townhouses are placed in low-density areas, which would not be permitted if they were private housing stock. The council is concerned about developments over railway stations. The council is particularly concerned that there should not be high-rise development over Caringbah and Cronulla railway stations. That is not unreasonable. The Minister is aware of the Kirrawee brick site. Council wants a lower density in that area than the State Government wants.
Mr Frank Sartor: But they had agreed. There was $500,000 of community consultation. They had agreed and then they changed their minds.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I remind the Minister that Churchill was once accused of changing his mind at a public meeting. He said, "When I am presented with the facts contrary to the opinion I formed before, I reconsider my position. What do you do?"
Mr Frank Sartor: But there were no new facts. This was an entirely political decision. There were no new facts.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: The Minister says it was purely a political decision, which is code for "It is against the public interest", that the public does not support it. I am happy for both the Minister and the council to seek the approval of the public for their plan. Development is appropriate, but there is always concern that as density is increased so too is congestion on the roads. I am not only talking about urban design, but also infrastructure. I would welcome the Minister justifying to the House why there should be higher density on the Kirrawee brick site. The other concerns of council are: no controls on villas for separation and concentration; brothels and sex shops—people in the shire have indicated that they do not want brothels and sex shops in the area; and what it calls the removal of "superfluous environmental protection provisions (Greenweb)".
The shire is environmentally conscious. It wants to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in relation to the environment. The honourable member for Miranda should be aware that not only does Sutherland Shire Council oppose this legislation, the Local Government and Shires Associations also oppose it. The honourable member for Bligh would no doubt initiate defamation proceedings if someone outside the House accused her of being a member of the Liberal Party. However, she is opposed to provisions of this legislation. The honourable member for Miranda should not see this as a partisan issue. This is an issue that transcends politics, and that is why there is opposition across the political spectrum to this bill. Any suggestion that giving this Minister additional powers—a Minister who was responsible for trying to impose a desalination plant on the shire—would be of benefit to the shire should be taken with a grain of salt.
A former vice-president of the United States of America was right when he said that in regard to planning often the debate is conducted behind a lot of false choices. It need not be citizens versus developers, business versus the environment, cities and suburbs versus farmlands. When we see our connectedness and craft solutions for the common good we see that the right solutions are good for business as well as for the environment and for families. I do not think the Minister for Planning or any member of the House would object to that proposition. In our planning we should be looking towards building more liveable communities in which people are able to raise families; places where the young and old can walk, bike and play together; places where we not only protect historic neighbourhoods but where green spaces can add life and beauty to the newest of suburbs; places where people can work competitively and still spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. Even the honourable member for Bligh would agree with those sentiments. The objective of the planning department of Sutherland Shire Council should be to achieve liveable communities in the shire, communities with a high quality of life that are economically competitive. Frank Lloyd White, who the Minister may have heard of, said, "A doctor can bury his mistakes but an architect can only advise his clients to plant vines."
Ms Clover Moore: And trees.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: And trees—if you have the space. Vines take less space. We do not want to see more vines in the Sutherland shire. We labour in the vineyard of Parliament, but we want our suburbs to be protected from unnecessary vines. It is unfortunate that this bill enables the Government to adopt the role of beauty commissar. I appreciate, Mr Acting-Speaker, there was probably a time when you saw a role for commissars in society—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The honourable member for Cronulla knows better than to involve the Chair in partisan debate. I will call him to order if he continues.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I just made a passing reference.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Paul Lynch): And I have made a passing ruling. The honourable member will return to the leave of the bill.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Nobody could ever accuse you of partisanship, Mr Acting-Speaker. As I said, we do not want to have beauty commissars, especially in this Government. Planning issues must be addressed in the Sutherland shire. In his contribution the honourable member for Manly spoke about the need for councils to have an ombudsman. I thought that was a reasonable suggestion. For example, fairly small councils could band together and employ an ombudsman. The Minister might be surprised to know that Sutherland Shire Council has an ombudsman. If the honourable member for Miranda thinks things are going on that should not be going on at Sutherland Shire Council, I wonder how many times he has availed himself of the services of the council ombudsman or the State Ombudsman for that matter. There are no particular safeguards within the planning mechanism at the moment. The Minister should be aware that the Sutherland Shire Council has an independent panel in relation to planning matters, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Miranda.
Mr Frank Sartor: Advisory panel.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes, an advisory panel. The honourable member for Miranda spoke highly of that advisory panel. The council should be congratulated for having a panel that gives fearless and independent advice in relation to those matters. If activities were taking place at Sutherland Shire Council that were wrong or sinister, would the council saddle itself with that mechanism? That advisory council was not required to be set up, and I think the Minister is going down the track where advisory councils are advisable—
Mr Frank Sartor: Don't go there.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: My only destination is to say that the Minister is now going down the track where he finds advisory councils are useful provisions in relation to the planning mechanism. Personal denigration will not help. We should be looking at the principles in planning and the objectives of good planning, which are to make liveable communities. We should not ignore the effect that development has on infrastructure, particularly roads, in the shire. We do not want those roads to be unnecessarily congested. I urge the Minister to work co-operatively with the Sutherland Shire Council. If he has complaints he is perfectly at liberty to take those complaints to the council. He has this House as a forum to discuss the Sutherland Shire Council. Simply denigrating people serves no purpose at all. We should be here to serve the community and nothing we decide here will have the degree of impact that planning laws have on the lifestyle of people and their families. It is incumbent on each of us to look at this legislation and the whole planning process in New South Wales and ensure that we get the best system possible.
Mr ALEX McTAGGART (Pittwater) [1.00 p.m.]: I oppose the bill in its current form. The basis of my opposition is twofold: first, the lack of consultation and, second, what I perceive to be an interference with the development control plan (DCP) process. There has been no consultation with councils or council staff, who, after all, are the people who have to deal with these issues, and there has been no consultation with the community, which is the end beneficiary or the end sufferer of these changes. The bill appears to be driven by land release projects, that is, it is developer led. The tragedy is it gives power to the Minister over all development applications. Certainly in Pittwater the majority of DAs are infill—alternations and additions, mum-and dad-renovations.
I do not believe the bill in its current form is in the interests of the people of Pittwater. Pittwater Council accepts 120 applications a month and resolves approximately 120 a month, with about six to 10 going to council for resolution. We have a functioning system called the development unit, which is an in-house public process. Councillors stay out of the process. Applicants and objectors are able to speak. Most of our applications are resolved at staff level. We have also developed an electronic tracking process for development applications. It has been implemented by many councils across Australia and was the recipient of numerous awards by the Government. It provides a clear, open and transparent tracking process for development applications.
I am particularly opposed to interference with DCPs, the reason being that DCPs are the way the community addresses the merit-based issues that arise from the topography and the locality. DCPs cover things such as view sharing, privacy, spatial separation, and the view from a public place. One of the problems we have in Pittwater is that the electorate contains very valuable waterfront and oceanfront land. Therefore, the applicants usually have plenty of money. They like to take council to the Land and Environment Court to try to push through what they want. That is the reason for a lot of council's legal costs. Those people do not want to abide by the wishes of the community. DCPs underpin the local environmental plans (LEPs). The LEPs are signed off by the Minister or the Department of Planning.
It is interesting to note that Pittwater 21, which is our current LEP, started off as Pittwater 2000 as a result of the old PlanFirst. It has been on exhibition twice and is still waiting for Parliamentary Counsel to sign it off. So from 2000 to 2005 we have not been able to get an LEP through. I am not reflecting on the Minister or the department, but that shows that the community wants to thoroughly vet the issues that go into an LEP. For a Minister to be able to take an LEP or a DCP and write it off, refer it, or change it, opens a Pandora's box.
Mr Frank Sartor: I can change LEPs now.
Mr ALEX McTAGGART: I understand that. DCPs respect the community's views and it is wrong for the Minister to take away that right without justification and true cause. In Pittwater's case—I am not talking about other local government areas—where the majority of applications are alterations and additions, we are not holding up development applications for huge land releases or slowing down the economy of New South Wales. We are endeavouring to reflect the community's values. Pittwater has almost completed the Warriewood Valley land release. For members who have not been there, this land release is quite remarkable. It has taken six or seven years. We have had no problems, no complaints and no need to call in the Minister. It is a very significant land release 20 kilometres from the city, one kilometre from the beach, next to a sewerage treatment works. We have not had any interference with this land release because the community has been able to demonstrate it can manage these things in a transparent and reasonable manner. Pittwater council does not believe it needs this sort of legislation that allows somebody to come in over the top of it.
I reiterate that consultation is required. In trying to improve land release areas in the western suburbs and elsewhere the Minister is opening up a Pandora's box by allowing interference with mundane alterations and additions, the standard matters that the residents of my electorate need to get on with. On that basis we would like to see more consultation and some form of template or guideline as to the reasons the Minister should be able to override a DCP. I am not satisfied that we know why the Minister should be able to alter planning powers.
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Planning, Minister for Redfern Waterloo, Minister for Science and Medical Research, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer)) [1.06 p.m.] in reply: I will first address the issue of consultation in relation to the bill. I have had meetings with a whole range of people from local government, including the Local Government and Shires Associations. I have had meetings with all the mayors and general managers of councils in the growth centres. I have also had discussions with them about the need to control overall development levies for both local and State infrastructure.
I had initial discussions with them about that many months ago. I have also met the five mayors from the lower Hunter region, the Property Council, the urban task force, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, which wrote a strongly supportive letter in only the last day or two, which I have seen, and the Housing Industry Association. It concerns me that the HIA, which was part of the Metro Alliance and part of the agreement on the strategy for growth centres, which included a regional infrastructure levy, suddenly has decided it does not support regional infrastructure levies. I have the power now to call in developments and impose regional infrastructure levies. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows me to indicate, in a more transparent way, a general levy for an area which councils can impose, along with their own levy, when they deal with development applications. It means I do not have to call in as many applications. In fact a theme of this bill is avoiding calling in applications.
I have already said to the Local Government Association that I will talk to it about performance reporting by local councils in relation to development applications. The current performance reporting is blunt. There is an average or median figure of 120 days, and I am well aware there are different categories of development. Some of them are complex and some are not. Privately all sorts of local government sources will agree that there is no question that councils at both ends of the spectrum are just not delivering. Contrary to some assertions, the precursors to this bill are simple. There are some compelling facts. First, there has been a flood of requests to me to call in more developments, which I do not wish to do. There are many more requests outstanding than I am able to deal with or that I want to deal with. I have to find a mechanism for dealing with that.
A significant body of evidence shows that there is non-performance in local government at both ends of the spectrum. I have asked in a review panel to look at one rural council where up to 25 development approvals may be invalid. Some country councils are approving developments too quickly without properly considering the issues. At the other end of the spectrum some city councils are taking forever to deal with applications and are apparently unconcerned about the effects that will have on applicants. We should remember that of the 125,000 applications that local councils deal with each year, most are from ordinary people or business men or women who just want to get on with their lives and businesses. Most of them are not developers. Developers are well armed with lawyers and appeal mechanisms. It is the little people who come into my electorate office and complain, sometimes justifiably, and cannot afford to go to the Land and Environment Court.
These chronic issues need to be addressed at both ends of the spectrum but there are a few problems at the margins that also need to be addressed. In a significant number of councils it is physically impossible for the Minister for Planning to appoint panels. There are not many people one would choose to appoint as panellists and, in any event, one would wish to appoint at least some panel members with local knowledge, such as councillors. The Central Sydney Planning Committee model has been around for 16 years in the city of Sydney. I worked with it as lord mayor. By way of comparison, the State deals with 400 applications and local government deals with 125,000. There is significant evidence that certain problems need to be addressed at the margin. However, the argument that this is interfering with the community is fatuous.
A recent report commissioned by local government entitled "Are Councils Sustainable" deals with a range of issues. The inquiry was undertaken by Percy Allan, who argued for a virtual council at Balmain, with no merger. Indeed, he wanted to make the council smaller. An IRS survey was commissioned to look at people's views on development processes in councils. The results are stunning. The survey comprised 912 respondents—not 300—of which 8.9 per cent said they wanted councils to determine development applications, 36 per cent wanted panels and 22 per cent wanted council staff. If one adds together panels and council staff, 58 per cent wanted people other than elected representatives to determine development applications. Another 26 per cent wanted the council to make the determination but only after advice from a panel. Only 8.9 per cent of people wanted councils to determine development applications.
Members opposite can bag the Government, but ordinary mums and dads are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the way they are treated under the present processes. The bill merely seeks to appoint panels to resolve marginal matters between applicants and objectors in reasonable time frames. I assure the House that there is no way I would interfere if a council takes more than 40 days to decide a development application. I am well aware that in some cases 40 days is a totally unrealistic time frame. In other cases 20 days is too long because the application relates to a minor matter and does not require exhibition. Consideration must be given to all the issues and the overall performance of the council. One council wants to refuse all dual occupancy applications. It has taken those matters to the Land and Environment Court and it has lost 26 out of 30 cases.
The provisions of the bill mean that the Minister will not have to deal with applications unnecessarily or sack a council and appoint an administrator to take over the functions of council. The bill redrafts section 118 to give the Minister more flexibility to intervene, but only where there is a problem. I will discuss with the Local Government and Shires Associations mechanisms for performance reporting because it is from that process that the Minister will make an informed judgment. I am aware that in some cases developers lodge poorly specified applications. I am well aware of the games that both sides play as I was in the industry for a long time and I have dealt extensively with such matters.
My colleagues have also made some valid points. The honourable member for Parramatta spoke about her council genuinely addressing delays. The honourable member for Drummoyne spoke about issues with her councils, in particular with respect to Breakfast Point, and how we had to intervene. The honourable member for Macquarie Fields referred to issues affecting his constituents and made a constructive contribution. The honourable member for Miranda reminded the House of the saga with Sutherland shire, although the honourable member for Cronulla put an alternative point of view.
During this debate I have given examples of problems; I have not named councils. I have avoided doing so because the bill is not about specific councils. Nothing would please me more than councils not being on the radar screen and people being broadly satisfied. However, one can never please everyone when dealing with development applications. Councils need to be time sensitive. They need to address the issues sensibly, try to reconcile competing claims and make decisions. When developments are reasonable, councils should not avoid making decisions that result in matters being taken to the Land and Environment Court.
A couple of industry groups want to cherry pick the legislation. We have said publicly for well over a year—and we have discussed this with industry groups across-the-board—that there would be regional infrastructure contributions, especially in the growth centres. The bill provides that the Minister for Planning does not have to be the consent authority. That is, there will be less intervention by the Minister, not more. The bill also provides—and I know the Property Council objects to this provision—that a special contributions area can be declared in other zones. In other words, where it makes sense to fund a road, it may make sense to have a regional infrastructure contribution. Under the bill the Minister could declare that as a requirement of the State, and local government could accommodate it.
One view has been that a growth centres commission should be established whenever we can levy a regional infrastructure contribution, but we should not set up bureaucracies unnecessarily. The process must be more flexible. The issues driving this process were, in part, the Metropolitan Strategy, which led to the need for regional infrastructure levies in the growth centres and was applauded across-the-board, the constant pressure on housing costs that is pushing up the price of housing and the importance of making sure that housing is affordable so that people will invest. Total contributions have to be reasonable and the Government is determined to ensure that remains the case. Local councils must realise that they cannot make wish lists out of section 94 plans. However, most councils act properly and will not be affected by the bill.
Although they provide a new income stream new residents should not bear the responsibility of all the costs when sometimes the facilities benefit other residents. Councils have to find a balance and 90 per cent of them do so. Efficiency and equity are important. The bill is not about internal process just for the sake of it. Where a panel is appointed the processes of local government do not change. Applications still have to be advertised and notified. I will introduce regulations to ensure that panels meet and make decisions openly. I do not intend to have a non-transparent system. Where we have to intervene, we will do so in a more transparent, selective and less extreme manner than we have in the past, when councils were sometimes sacked. We want conflicts to be resolved at a local level. Too much conflict is coming to my department.
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive contribution. I note his point that it is easy to try to cherry pick this bill, but this is a package. An advantage for local government is that if a section 94 contribution plan is amended or approved, local government no longer has the uncertainty of being appealed against by developers in the court. The bill removes the right to appeal against local council plans. At present, once a council has adopted a section 94 plan and is in the process of imposing a levy it is difficult for council to change what it is doing midstream, and it is unfortunate if the court overturns a particular condition of consent. If the Government has reviewed the plan and approved, adopted or amended it, council will be protected from further appeals by developers. That is a significant gain for local government, which I am sure over time will come to be appreciated perhaps more than it is at the minute.
The honourable member for Manly talked about the 40 day time limit. As I said, 40 days does not mean anything to me in terms of intervention. I do not think one could ever intervene on such a broad basis. The proposal for an internal or local ombudsman worries me in terms of more bureaucracy. We simply want councillors to do their job competently and efficiently. We do not want more oversight and more bureaucracy. Basically, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was playing to his electorate. He has attended meetings with me and the council. I have given Ku-ring-gai Council a lot of time to deal with its issues; there have been many letters and much correspondence. I am always playing nursemaid to the council but I cannot do its job.
As usual, the honourable member for Wakehurst talked about fine ideals. The honourable member for Cronulla is concerned about the brick pit site, which I called in after the council had agreed to the controls. Council had spent $500,000, 20 public meetings had been held, and everyone had agreed to the plan. Then a new council, for legal reasons, changed its mind. People need certainty. Although the State happens to be a landlord, it should also be able to get on with its job. I am pleased about the processes to which the honourable member for Pittwater referred. I have not had one complaint about Pittwater Council. I do not have the slightest interest in interfering in Pittwater. I am simply concerned to pick up the outlays across the board.
As usual, the honourable member for Bligh made a huge, broad-brush attack on democracy, notwithstanding the fact that 89 per cent of the people of this State want councils to deal with applications. She made a broad-brush attack about rampant hypocrisy and the Askin days, and she made imputations of corruption to which I take some offence. She strongly opposes the bill, notwithstanding all its good provisions. My advice is that the honourable member for Bligh should look in her own backyard in her role in the city of Sydney. The Carlton and United Breweries site has now been under discussion for probably three years. They even talked to me about it when I was the Lord Mayor of Sydney. The saga of the Centrepoint site is interminable. On the issue of Notre Dame University, the director general wrote to the council asking it to deal with that in two months. The council does not seem to be capable of dealing with a simple application. The council should get its act together because it is starting to slide from the efficient system we had in place some years ago.
Frankly, broad-based attacks on the Government, imputing improper motives, is a little passé. We are genuine about wanting an efficient system. We must protect affordable housing and the people of this State who rely on development consents so that we can achieve a balance between environmental outcomes and people's personal wishes. I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. This bill is important. It is well crafted, and it will serve us well to ensure that we lift the standard of processing and dealing with development applications in this State. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 50
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Chaytor
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Daley
Mrs Fardell | Ms Gadiel
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos | Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 6
 | Mr Barr
Mr Draper
Mr McTaggart
Ms Moore
Tellers,
Mr Oakeshott
Mr Torbay | |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.33 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:55 : Update this page