1. Home
  2. Hansard & Papers
  3. Legislative Assembly
  4. 29 March 2006
Contact Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript         « Prior Item | Item 46 of 47 | Next Item »

About this Item
Subjects -  Environment; Planning and Development
Speakers - Chairman (Mr John Mills); Sartor Mr Frank; Hartcher Mr Chris; O'Farrell Mr Barry; Skinner Mrs Jillian; Humpherson Mr Andrew; Hazzard Mr Brad; Kerr Mr Malcolm; Richardson Mr Michael; Merton Mr Wayne; Temporary Chairman (Mr Paul Lynch); Moore Ms Clover
Business - Bill, Division, Message, Report, In Committee, Motion, Report Adopted


    ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL
Page: 21735


    In Committee

    Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.
    Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 28 March

    No. 1 Page 6, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

    (4) In determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions under this Subdivision for development within a particular special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to do one or more of the following:

    (a) consult with owners of land in the special contributions area and other relevant stakeholders,

    (b) publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions and seek submissions within a reasonable time in relation to that proposal,

    (c) establish a panel that, in the Minister's opinion, represents the interests of the various relevant stakeholders and consult with that panel.

    No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

    (4) The determination of the Minister:

    (a) is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions, and

    (b) is to be made publicly available by the Minister.

    No. 3 Page 8, schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EG. Insert after line 2:

    (4) Before creating a special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to consult with the peak industry organisations that the Minister considers to be relevant.

    No. 4 Page 10, schedule 1 [19]. Insert after line 19:
    Review

    (1) The Minister is to review Subdivision 4 of Division 6 of Part 4 of this Act to determine whether the policy objectives of that Subdivision remain valid and whether the terms of this Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

    (2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 3 years from the date of assent to the amending Act.

    (3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 3 years.

    No. 5 Page 11, schedule 2. Insert after line 32:

    [3] Section 117 (4A)

    Insert after section 117 (4):

    (4A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2) (c), the Minister is to consult with the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and any other industry organisation the Minister considers to be relevant, in relation to the information that the Minister is proposing to seek. This requirement is in addition to the requirement under subsection (4).

    No. 6 Page 12, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 35:

    (4) A panel may not exercise the functions of a council for a continuous period of more than 5 years.

    (5) If a panel exercises the functions of a council for a continuous period of more than 2 years, the Minister is, as soon as practicable after 2 years after the date on which the panel was appointed, to conduct a review of the appointment and functions of the panel.

    (6) A review under subsection (5) is to be conducted by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Local Government, the Local Government and Shires Associations of New South Wales and any other industry organisation that the Minister considers to be relevant.

    No. 7 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118 (5), line 2. Omit "consult with". Insert instead "obtain the concurrence of".

    No. 8 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 2:

    (6) The Minister may appoint a planning administrator or a panel for a reason set out in subsection (1) (b) only if the Minister has, by order published in the Gazette, provided heads of consideration for the exercise of power under subsection (1) (b), and has taken those heads of consideration into account.

    No. 9 Page 13, schedule 2 [3], proposed section 118. Insert after line 6:

    (7) The Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable after appointing a planning administrator or a panel, make the reasons for that appointment publicly available.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! In view of the fact that amendments are to be proposed to the Legislative Council amendments, I will put the question on each of the Legislative Council's amendments separately.

    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)) [8.05 p.m.]: I move:

    That Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

    This is a sensible amendment that provides a system of consultation depending on the nature of the special contributions area. For example, if it were a special contributions area, such as a series of lots for large employment land areas or industrial areas, we would consult the relevant owners. If it were a broader question, we would exhibit it. It is incredible that our beloved friends in the Opposition have a new lease of life in respect of this bill. They have been lining up and getting all excited like fish in the mating season. Interestingly, in the past the Opposition's policy has been very different from the position honourable members are putting here tonight. On 25 June 2005 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to Ku-ring-gai developments and stated:

    Unfortunately, that approach represents a continuation of the council politicking in this area that I have criticised before, the type of politicking that stupidly resulted in councillors contributing to delays in settling a residential strategy for Ku-ring-gai. It was stupid because it was based on the flawed view that if the issue was delayed and deferred it would somehow go away.
    It is important that residents demand an end to this type of politicking by local councils, which has worsened, not improved, the planning situation facing Ku-ring-gai. The Australian Financial Review of 25 August states:

    Although some councils already use Panels, under Mr Brogden's plans their decisions on planning could be made compulsory … Mr Brogden said that after the corruption findings at Strathfield Council where the mayor was documented taking bribes from a developer greater efforts must be made to establish corruption proof councils.

    In December 2005, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated in a media release:

    Complaints about local government planning processes are one of the biggest issues residents raise with me each year … the complaints cover everything from time delays through to inconsistent treatment of applications.

    These were the stirring words honourable members of the Opposition used when talking about intervention. Of course, when the legislation was introduced in the lower House they bolted because they did not want to vote on it. Opposition members of the upper House muddled along and talked about it being a bad piece of legislation. There is another interesting inconsistency. Someone once said, "Spare us from the righteous."

    The honourable member for Bligh, in her capacity as Lord Mayor, told us how dreadful the bill is. How it is a planning power grab that threatens the independence and capacity of local government, that it is an assault on democracy and an outrage. She continued with that sort of hyperbole. However, the planning panels idea is based on a model operating in the City of Sydney that was introduced by the Liberal Government in 1988 legislation. It is called the Central Sydney Planning Committee [CSPC]. The honourable member for Bligh, in her capacity as Lord Mayor, wrote a letter to me dated 8 September in response to a letter from my predecessor expressing concern about some aspects of council's operations.

    She said the council, its staff and the members of the CSPC work together co-operatively and constructively on issues before the committee. The Lord Mayor said she appreciated the provisions in the State-significant development SEPP that acknowledged the role and significance of the CSPC, which had been working well in determining development applications valued at in excess of $50 million. So the honourable member for Bligh says the CSPC model, the precedent, about which she is so outraged, works well in her council. There you have it. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy and puffery about the bill. Despite a big campaign by the Local Government Association, when one listens to the punters out there, the ordinary people who have to deal with councils day to day, there is a dilemma. A chap named Steve called Chris Smith's program yesterday, saying:

    We've had DAs in councils for two years—I know people who have been over two years, just for a simple development building. I think sometimes in councils it comes down to not what you know, but who you know. We've been asking simple things and put the application in and seem to get different feels from different people.

    Another fellow called Daryl said:

    I regularly deal with councils. If a council did an approval in 40 days it would be an absolute miracle. The average time of our approvals is six months—some are up to a year. We need something else to go to and I think Frank Sartor's initiative to get somewhere else to appeal is a fantastic idea. Ku-ring-gai Council without any question are the most tree-hugging, owner-resistant council that is out there at the moment.

    According to this fellow Hawkesbury City Council is far and away the best council. There were other callers but I will not quote them all. The point I am making is there is no groundswell of opposition in the community to this bill. A lot of people will benefit from it. It is about giving people a fair go and having a mechanism to make councils accountable for their performance. I commend the amendment.

    Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.12 p.m.]: The Minister's remarks dealing with the bill cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The comments he is referring to related to specific developments. They are not related to the law in environmental planning and assessment. The Minister has purposely misrepresented the Coalition's position for some time and quoted out of context the former member for Pittwater, John Brogden, in relation to the role of planning panels. In the Coalition's policy those panels were to be advisory only. There is an enormous difference between advisory and mandatory, as the Minister well knows, and it is mischievous on his part to try to misrepresent the Coalition's opposition to achieve a result that serves his ends but does not serve the truth.

    The Coalition has taken a deliberate and carefully thought out stance in consultation with the community. That is the enormous difference between the Coalition and the Government. The Coalition has backed the community, but the Government has walked over the community. It is no surprise that one commentator has described the Minister as the Godzilla of planning in New South Wales. I have no idea who it was, but nonetheless it is a remark that has been taken up by many commentators. They believe that having taken over State-significant developments, all the major developments in this State, the Minister is now moving to take away medium and smaller-scale developments. We will get to the stage where the only decisions made by local councils will be those relating to the garage and whether you have a glassed-in veranda. Everything else will be decided in the fortress known as Governor Macquarie Tower in Phillip Street.

    That is not acceptable to the people of this State. They want local communities to make decisions that affect them and the Minister's attempt to grab power at every level is to be deplored. Accordingly, the Coalition does not support the Minister's attempt to endorse the amendments he has negotiated through the Legislative Council. The Minister has made certain concessions to crossbench members of the Legislative Council. These are the only matters we have to debate tonight. To show our disapproval and lack of support and the fact that we will oppose this legislation relentlessly, we will not support these amendments any more than we will support the bill. The whole thing should be withdrawn and scrapped. We will continue our campaign right up to 24 March 2007. I move:

    That Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be amended by leaving out the words "is to do one or more of the following" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "shall".

    That means the Minister must carry out every step in the consultation process. It does not mean that we support the principle of the bill. We are showing our disapproval of the bill and making sure that if the Minister is to have these extraordinary powers they will be tightened up as far as community consultation goes. Amendment No.1 relates to community consultation and gives the Minister three options. He can pick and choose which option he wants. We say no, if he is going to have community consultation in this bill, which we oppose, he should at least have genuine consultation. He can go through each of the three steps to ensure that community consultation is meaningful and not a farce.

    At present the Minister can choose which of the three he wants. He can consult the owners of the land, publicly exhibit a plan or establish a panel, whichever one he pleases and whichever one will give him the desired result. Let him do all three. Let him go right to the community, consult the owners, exhibit his plan and establish a panel to advise him. Let him ensure there is proper, detailed and comprehensive community consultation, which never took place before this bill was introduced into the Parliament. Accordingly, we have moved the amendment not to support the legislation but in the spirit of supporting community consultation.

    Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.17 p.m.]: I speak in this debate particularly because the Minister for Planning has again endeavoured to verbal me. Together with the honourable member for Davidson, I represent the Ku-ring-gai community, which will be one of the first communities to suffer the consequences of this legislation. As I said in my second reading contribution, the Department of Planning has for some time had the planning gun locked with its sights on Ku-ring-gai. The legislation is now about to be passed that allows the Minister to fire at will and it is the community of Ku-ring-gai that will suffer. Despite what the Minister says, there is nothing inconsistent with either the frustration that residents and I have from time to time with the antics of Ku-ring-gai Council or my fundamental opposition to this attempt to grab power through this extraordinary legislation to enable the Minister for Planning and his bureaucrats to pick and choose at will which developments sites in Ku-ring-gai and elsewhere they will take control of.

    I find it extraordinary that this legislation enables the Minister to act on the basis of criteria that are so open ended. The Minister took four months to respond to a letter from Ku-ring-gai Council, yet the Government talks about the sorts of delays that councils such as Ku-ring-gai may be causing that would give reason to using this legislation against them. In his amendments the honourable member for Gosford is trying to tighten some of the restrictions in other parts of this legislation. However, it is a bit rich for the Government, notwithstanding the passage of this legislation through the upper House, to set one standard for councils and another for itself. The reality is that there has been significant improvement in Ku-ring-gai Council, which should be recognised and rewarded by the Department of Planning. It should not be penalised. The sorts of constraints the honourable member for Gosford is trying to put on this legislation would ensure—

    Mr Matt Brown: Eighteen months for the UTS campus.

    Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am glad that the honourable member for Kiama raises the UTS campus, an issue that I will speak about further in the House tomorrow. It simply confirms the honourable member for Kiama's view in relation to the UTS campus. Why should it not take 18 months for a council to consider a proposal that involves 556 dwellings, on a parcel of land deep in a residential suburb overlooking a national park? If the honourable member for Kiama suggests it ought to take a week, it simply demonstrates the concrete shoes and concrete hearts that Government members have—and, of course, the very large wallets they expect to get from their developer mates. The honourable member for Kiama, by way of his interjection, has given away what is at the heart of this bill: sending the developers into the heart of residential areas, whether they be on the North Shore, in the western suburbs, in the eastern suburbs, or wherever—not for community good, not for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of making this city more liveable, but for the benefit of Labor, its coffers and its developer mates.

    With regard to Ku-ring-gai Council's improved performance, we have seen the reduction in the number of outstanding development applications before council, from 1,000 in November 2003 to 338 this month, a reduction in the time taken by council to process development applications, from the 111 to 78 days and falling, the fact that 80 per cent of all medium-density development applications lodged with council have been determined, and a $600,000 reduction in legal costs associated with Land and Environment Court appeals between 2003 and 2005. That is the sort of behaviour that the Minister ought to applaud, and rewarding through a SEPP 53 exemption. But, instead, the Minister seeks to further penalise the communities of Ku-ring-gai and elsewhere by both lying about the sorts of performances they are undertaking and getting this legislation through.

    This legislation passed the upper House with the support of a number of members, including Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes is a North Shore resident. Some 1,400 Ku-ring-gai voters contributed to his re-election during the last election campaign. I will remind those 1,400 voters, and thousands of other voters during the lead-up to the next election campaign when Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is up for election, of the fact that the two good reverends were prepared to get down and dirty and do a deal with Labor in relation to a planning law that is outrageous in its scope, that in its ambit will destroy Ku-ring-gai, and that ultimately will be used against the sorts of communities that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes claim to represent.

    Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [8.22 p.m.]: I support the comments of my colleagues and, in the spirit of the broad range of subjects raised by the Minister in the amendment process, I place on record my objection to the amendments. As the shadow Minister said, it is an either-or, take-your-pick type of arrangement whereby the Minister may consult, may publicly exhibit, or may establish a panel. My constituents in Mosman and North Sydney council areas take very seriously the development of local environment plans. The plans are exhibited for extensive periods and a lot of consultation takes place with regard to what is proposed in the plans. Obviously, therefore, this is a clear attempt by the Minister to simply take control. It is a demonstration of the Kremlin attitude of this Government—central control, override local constituents, take no notice of local councils.

    I believe that North Sydney Council and Mosman council do a very good job of consulting with their local communities on developing local environment plans. This is purely a grab by the Minister to take over the planning fort from elected representatives at the local government level. The appointment of panels will result in the removal of the authority of those elected representatives. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency?

    Everyone is concerned about delays in the approval of development applications, but I believe we must be concerned also about transparency, about the opportunity to consult with constituents, and so on. Recently I joined with a number of my neighbours in protesting against a major development proposed in Neutral Bay by Woolworths. The whole process took place over several months. It is not something you would want to happen in 30 days. A number of public meetings were held, a number of letters were sent, a number of forums were held, and eventually the matter went to the Land and Environment Court. This legislation is about appointing a panel, overriding the local community, and rubber-stamping what the developer, or in this case the applicant, wants. It is dangerous legislation. I support my local community and my local councils, which, given the complex process of planning approvals in such a densely developed area as my electorate, do a reasonably good job.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [8.25 p.m.]: Having had responsibility on behalf of the Opposition for the planning portfolio for a little over a year, I have learned that what all sides of the general development dynamic want is certainty. People want to be certain that the character of the community in which they live cannot be unduly and rapidly changed. Likewise, an applicant, whether it be a large developer or a small property owner, wants certainty a timely result that is consistent with the development controls of planning instruments.

    What the Government is doing by way of this legislation, and certainly by centralising much of the authority, will not assist with ensuring that certainty. Indeed, if anything, it will increase people's cynical view that many of the Government's planning decisions are not made in the interests of the community and, indeed, are influenced by those who have the ear of the Minister or those who have been able to buy influence within the Government. People who choose to move to a residential area make it their domicile; it is where their lifestyle is based. When there is the capacity for someone to lobby the Minister and effectively take away that certainty, and influence the development controls or change the process of by which development applications are determined, it is extremely unfair for anyone affected by the proposed development.

    I acknowledge that there are some good examples of how independent hearing and assessment panels [IHAPs] have operated, but the majority of those examples have not involved councils being bypassed. It does not require, and has not required, the Minister to appoint the IHAPs, which comprise people determined by the Minister ineffectively and, in effect, on strings pulled from Macquarie Street and Governor Macquarie Tower. It does not need to disempower councillors. Many councillors recognise the benefits of IHAPs, believing they can take some of the heat out of the process. However, the unilateral fashion in which the Minister does that via this legislation goes too far.

    The Minister referred to the timeliness of development applications, which is something councils clearly have scope to improve. The Minister, by way of example, criticised Ku-ring-gai Council. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I know full well, over the past two years, certainly with encouragement from both of us as the respective State members, Ku-ring-gai council has made great steps towards improving its performance. Under the leadership of Adrienne Ryan and other councillors, the council has substantially reduced its legal bills, which is a benefit for ratepayers, it has substantially reduced its backlog of development applications, and it has reduced the time in which development applications are determined. Yet the Minister has not given credit to Ku-ring-gai Council where it is due.

    The council has been criticised , and rightly so, for prevaricating, and creating delays and uncertainty, particularly for applicants, and the council has sought to address those issues. However, the Minister for Planning has ignored that. It is important to place on record that because the Minister has been disingenuous about the circumstances of Ku-ring-gai Council, it has cast doubt on the Minister's merits in using the council as part of his argument for change. The powers that the legislation gives in relation to development control plans are one of the most draconian aspects of it. Development control plans that are developed in consultation with the community—

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Davidson will address his remarks to Legislative Council amendment No. 1. Development control plans are not referred to in that amendment. The Committee has now heard three second reading speeches and one speech addressing the amendment. The patience of the Chair is running out. I ask members to address the Legislative Council amendments. That is what they are here for; they are not here to make second reading speeches.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I will continue to respond to the comments that were made by the Minister in debate.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson continues to argue with the Chair and continues to make a second reading speech I will rule him out of order. If he does not restrict his remarks to the amendment I will direct him to resume his seat.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am replying to the contribution of the Minister.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson does not address the amendment I will direct him to resume his seat.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Quite clearly you allowed the Minister to make a contribution and I will continue.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! If the honourable member for Davidson continues that approach I will order him to be seated.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Within the confines of debate—

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.

    Mr Brad Hazzard: We will move dissent; you will have dissent on your hands.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am engaging in debate in the manner in which the Minister engaged in debate.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will address the amendment or resume his seat.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: I am responding to the remarks made by the Minister. You clearly allowed parameters within which this debate should proceed.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): The honourable member for Davidson will address the amendment, as required by the standing orders.

    Mr ANDREW HUMPHERSON: Mr Chairman, you keep saying that but you are not listening to what I am saying. I am responding to the contribution made by a number of members to the debate, including the Minister. The Minister traversed a number of issues and I am responding to them. In particular, the Minister reflected adversely on councils and that is the issue I am talking about. Obviously the Minister is seeking to make changes that will affect communities. He referred to the public support for these changes that was given by callers to the Chris Smith program. When the Minister made those references and comments it is clear that he was expecting some comment on the need for development control plans [DCPs]. He expected communities to have their standards protected by DCPs.

    The bill refers elsewhere to DCPs. They are an intrinsic part of protecting the character of a local community. The Minister's approach, a Godzilla approach, is to give him amazing powers to destroy DCPs—a product of community consultation. The Minister has been disingenuous in his approach, given the arguments that he has raised. I understand the normal parameters that apply to debates, but the Minister covered a variety of issues and it is reasonable for the Opposition to have a chance to respond to them. DCPs play a key role in reflecting community consultation and they protect in large measure some of the finer details of the local character of a community. It is extraordinarily draconian for the Minister to be given powers to override, remove or change those DCPs. I suggest those powers should be changed at the first possible opportunity.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [8.33 p.m.]: The amendment that the Government moved to its own bill confirms what the Opposition was told, that is, this bill was not properly considered when it was introduced in this Chamber the week before last.

    Mr Matt Brown: We are listening to the community.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The honourable member for Kiama said, "We are listening to the community." He is listening to people who are criticising this bill. When this bill was introduced, the honourable member for Gosford, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Cronulla and I said we were concerned about a number of issues. We also said that those issues required more time for consultation. To some degree the Labor member for Kiama is now confirming that the Government is listening to the community, which means it has been consulted. The Government did not consult the community before this bill was introduced.

    For that reason it had to do what most governments would be too embarrassed to do—it had to amend its bill in the Legislative Council and bring it back to this Chamber so that we could consider the amendments. I pointed out in debate on the second reading that the Opposition is extremely concerned about this bill as it is based on an assumption that this State Government can do it better than local government, and that it has the capacity to produce better planning outcomes, which is not true. This Government is tardier and more incompetent than any council anywhere in New South Wales could ever aspire to be.

    We are talking about delays in planning at a council level. Obviously, from time to time there are delays that concern the community but councils should sort out those issues. The Government is talking about taking away planning powers from councils because of perceived delays but it ignores the fact that it is probably the biggest cause of those delays. When it had a problem with trains it slowed them down. When it had a problem with maintenance in schools it slowed that down. Patients cannot get into hospitals as they have all been slowed right down. Hospitals are not dealing with patients and they have year-long waits before they are being admitted. This bill is hypocritical. It does not make any sense for a Government that is so slow and tardy to argue that it can plan better. This proposal will be further amended by an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Gosford.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I ask members to cease interjecting and to extend a degree of courtesy to the honourable member for Wakehurst.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Public concern has been expressed about the incompetence of the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, in seeking these proposed planning determinations. Even though this bill will be amended he is still trying to avoid the consequences of consulting and exhibiting his proposals for change. The amendment states:

    Page 6. Schedule 1 [15], proposed section 94EE. Insert after line 36:

    (4) In determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions under this subdivision for development within a particular special contributions area (other than a growth centre), the Minister is to do one or more of the following:

    Before I list what is contained in that amendment, I emphasise that the Minister is hoping honourable members will accept that he has to do only one or more of the following. The amendment continues:

    (a) consult with owners of land in the special contributions area and other relevant stakeholders,

    (b) publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions and seek submissions within a reasonable time in relation to that proposal,

    (c) establish a panel that, in the Minister's opinion, represents the interests of the various relevant stakeholders and consult with that panel.

    The Minister is proposing to do only one of those three things. In my view honourable members should reject any concept that this Minister's is capable of making decisions about any aspect of this bill. Failing that we certainly should reject the concept that the Minister is entitled to do only one of those three things. This amendment relates to the establishment of a Special Contributions Areas Infrastructure Fund. Under this bill the definition of that fund is wide open. There is no indication of how much money the Government will rip off consumers, end users, or young families who move onto these blocks of land, in particular, in the north-west, south-west and western areas of Sydney.

    To properly consider this amendment we need to understand what the Government is proposing. The Government is proposing that if a developer is establishing a subdivision, the developer will, in the usual course, prepare the linear plan, get it approved, pay for the roads to go in and the basic services—the water and electricity—and those charges will then become part of the final price of a block of land. That is the way it has always been, and that is an acceptable position for the community at the moment. We accept that those are the costs of developing the land.

    The Labor Government purports to be for the people of Sydney and the people of New South Wales, but it is establishing an additional fund that at this stage is going to be the beneficiary of further money from the developer. As far as we can work out from what the Government has told us thus far, that money will be used for infrastructure such as police stations, schools, community centres and hospitals. The Government is actively seeking to abrogate all of its responsibilities to the community: It will be a government that does not have to worry about government responsibilities. It simply will pass on extra charges to the young families who buy these blocks of land. As sure as night follows day, if the Government establishes this special contributions infrastructure fund whatever money is put into that fund—to be determined by some as yet unknown equation to be provided by the Government—the developer most certainly will pass the cost on to the young families who buy the blocks of land.

    I have just done some rough figures, but this fund will possibly add an additional $200,000 to $300,000 to the price of a block of land in the north-west, the west and south-west of Sydney. It is totally unacceptable, from the Opposition's point of view, that those funds should be paid by the end user_that is, by the first couple, the first family, the first people who buy that block of land. How ridiculous! I ask honourable members to think about the logic of it: a family that buys its first house is paying for the infrastructure—the police stations, the community centres, the hospitals—that are going to be in place for possibly the next 100 years. This Labor Government, which is supposed to care about people, shows yet again that it has no regard for the young families of Western Sydney, north-western Sydney and south-western Sydney.

    Given that background, we have to consider what the Government is doing when it brings this amendment back to the House—it is a Government amendment. It tells us that yes, the Government has woken up to the fact that it might be in a bit of political bother because it is planning to establish the most outrageous fund but, on top of that, the Minister is trying to slip his way through by not being forced to even consider each of the three items that are set out under this particular provision. That is why the honourable member for Gosford has sought to further amend the Government's amendment by removing the words, "is to do one or more of the following" and inserting instead, "shall". The New South Wales Liberal and National parties are committed to transparency, decency and integrity. This Government does not understand that. Government members are living their lives under rocks and they are now trying to dud the young families of western, north-western and south-western Sydney by whacking on extra charges via the backdoor of this infrastructure fund. At the same time, the Minister does not even want to go to the trouble of dealing conjunctively with each of the three items contained under the Government's first amendment. This Minister—I described the bill as being the "Trust Me, I'm Frank Bill" in my contribution to the second reading debate—

    Mr Grant McBride: This Minister?

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Not you. I would not suggest that we should not trust you_I am talking about the "Trust Me, I'm Frank Bill". I am saying that the Minister for Planning cannot be trusted to do anything that is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. Young families will suffer as a result of this stupidity—this ridiculous bill. I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford, who understands this bill all too well. He understands the Government's agenda. I assure the Government that if it does not agree with the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford we will oppose its amendment, because it is totally reprehensible.

    Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [8.45 p.m.]: I speak in relation to this amendment.

    Mr Grant McBride: Do you know what amendment it is?

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is the amendment that gives the pretence of consultation.

    Mr Grant McBride: What number is it?

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: It is No. 1, page 6, schedule 1.

    Mr Chris Hartcher: Did the Minister for Gaming and Racing know that?

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: No. He is just in the chair.

    Mr Chris Hartcher: He is playing the poker machines still.

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: That is exactly right.

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! I ask the honourable member for Cronulla to address the amendment.

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: Certainly, because when it comes to this amendment the Minister for Gaming and Racing is not in the club. As I was saying, the Government's amendment gives the pretence of consultation—the Government will deal with stakeholders and look after the interests of various relevant stakeholders. However, we have to look at the history of the Minister for Planning to determine whether he really looks after the interests of the various relevant stakeholders. The Government intended to put a desalination plant in my electorate at Kurnell. One would have thought that local residents would have been the various relevant stakeholders and that their interests would have been considered, but they were not. An arbitrary decision was made by this Government and this Minister to put in a desalination plant that turned out to be unnecessary.

    Mr Brad Hazzard: A dud.

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: A dud. The Government is now going to spend $120 million on what it considers to be an unnecessary plant. The people of Sutherland shire and the people of my electorate do not want to see the power removed from their council, which is accountable to them at election time, and given to a Minister who has been prepared to trample over their rights. In relation to this bill, the people of Sydney are the stakeholders and it is their interests that should be considered. I wonder whether anybody in this Government is prepared to listen to the opinions of those stakeholders, because I can tell them those opinions.

    An opinion poll was conducted by Iris Research on 22 to 23 March. The poll included a representative sample of 640 households in metropolitan, regional and rural New South Wales. The key results in relation to the stakeholders were: 72 per cent of those polled felt local government was the most appropriate level of government to determine building and development applications, 92 per cent believed the community should be consulted before any attempt was made to transfer responsibility from councils to planning assessment panels appointed by the State Government, 60 per cent disagreed with shifting responsibility for development applications from elected local councillors to planning and assessment panels appointed by the State Government, and 95 per cent believed that if such panels were introduced the State Government should have to provide reasons for that decision.

    When one looks at the Government's amendment one sees that it does not address the opinions and views of the stakeholders. The Minister does not deal with that. Other key results of the poll were: 86 per cent felt people who directly or indirectly worked for developers should not be allowed to serve on the proposed panels and 65 per cent wanted councils, not panels, to be responsible for approving development applications. Why do stakeholders hold these views? Because they know that their local councils, which are made up of their representatives, are accountable to them at election time. The stakeholders do not want power to shift from the people's representatives to someone as unrepresentative as the Minister for Planning.

    Mr Richard Amery: Wasn't he elected?

    Mr MALCOLM KERR: He was elected by the people of Rockdale but not by the people of the Sutherland shire. In fact, he was not elected by the Labor branch in Rockdale. But I will set that matter aside and address my remarks to the amendment before the Committee. I could be tempted to talk about the mayor of Rockdale and how he sought preselection but did not get it because the Minister was imposed upon the local branch. But I will not do that. The Government's amendment pretends to provide for consultation. The President of the Shires Association, Councillor Col Sullivan, said that the overall survey results—to which I referred—masked a stronger commitment to local government in rural and regional areas than in metropolitan areas. That is probably true, but they certainly represent the views of Sutherland shire. The president went on to say:

    The Minister has failed to consult the people, he wants absolute power to strip any councils of their role in determining planning when he says so, and he refuses to include in the legislation a right to any explanation for his actions.

    Communities will have no role in consultation, all parties will have no legal rights of appeal, and I can tell the State Government now we will fight to ensure transparency and accountability are features of any legislative changes that pass through Parliament.

    The amendment of the honourable member for Gosford will insert the word "shall" to ensure that the Minister does not have discretion—which he will always exercise in an arbitrary fashion to suit his agenda, not the wider public interest. That is why the Opposition will support the Opposition's amendment and oppose the Government's amendment and its repulsive legislation.

    Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.52 p.m.]: My electorate of The Hills extends over part of one of the Government's designated growth areas, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill will impact significantly on many of my constituents. A couple of nights ago I talked to Councillor Hay at a function in my electorate. I am sure that Labor members will be familiar with Councillor Hay. He is the Chairman of the Western Suburbs Regional Organisation of Councils, a Labor Party stalwart, and the Labor candidate for the seat of Baulkham Hills in the past two State elections. Councillor Hay is adamantly opposed to this bill—regardless of whether it is amended—because he clearly understands its likely impact on our area.

    The Government's amendment does not go far enough in addressing concerns in The Hills. We are concerned about the likely increase in the price of housing in our area. It is a designated growth centre and we know that a significant infrastructure levy will be imposed on new home owners. Although the levy is called a development levy it must be passed on to someone. One of the great myths perpetuated by this Government is that developers will pay the levy and consumers will remain unaffected. That is simply not the case. Ultimately consumers will pick up the tab. They will end up paying significantly more for infrastructure as a consequence of this bill—and not necessarily for infrastructure in their development area. The bill provides for charges to be levied for infrastructure outside a growth centre so long as it has some sort of connection to the area where the funds were raised.

    I will give an example of what a development levy might fund. It might fund the proposed new railway tunnel under the harbour. Honourable members may remember that there is a proposal—it is just another of the lines on the map that the Government is very good at drawing; it never actually does anything to provide infrastructure—to link Bringelly to Rouse Hill in my electorate by rail. There is also a proposal to build a new tunnel under the harbour. If that were to happen—it is a most unlikely eventuality—young first home owners in my electorate and people in Camden, Campbelltown, Bringelly and throughout south-western Sydney would have to pay for a tunnel that will benefit all the people of Sydney, not just residents of the areas I mentioned. People who purchase houses in Campbelltown, south-western and north-western Sydney and in The Hills district will end up funding infrastructure that will benefit the entire population of Sydney. I cannot see how that is fair and I cannot see how the Government's amendment will benefit my constituents.

    The honourable member for Camden is in the Chamber, and the bill will impact significantly on his electorate. I wonder whether the honourable member supports the bill, as amended, because the Government's proposals will significantly disadvantage his constituents. The honourable member for Wakehurst pointed out that the amendment requires the Minister, in determining the level and nature of development contributions to be imposed as conditions on development within a particular special contributions area other than a growth centre—because the provision also applies to areas outside growth areas that are designated as special contributions areas—to do one or more of the following. He can consult landowners, publicly exhibit a proposal in relation to the level of development contributions, or he can establish and consult a panel that represents the interests of the various stakeholders.

    The Minister can do all those things if the mood takes him but he is not required to do them all. The honourable member for Gosford's amendment deletes "is to do one or more of the following" and inserts instead the word "shall". The Opposition believes that amendment is entirely appropriate and will address at least some of the concerns that Opposition members have about the bill. One of the main reasons why Councillor Hay opposes the bill is that it has the potential to strip councils of their planning powers. Like all the councillors on Baulkham Hills shire council to whom I spoke about this matter—Liberal as well as Labor—Councillor Hay is outraged. The Government's amendment will provide a five-year time limit within which the panel can exercise the functions of a council. But that simply does not go far enough. It is still quite possible for the Minister to strip a council of its powers and to do it on fairly spurious grounds. Effectively, he could do it on the basis that he did not like the council or individuals on the council. New section 118 states that the Minister may appoint a planning administrator—

    The CHAIRMAN (Mr John Mills): Order! The Committee is considering amendment No. 1, which relates to new section 94EE. The honourable member for The Hills will have the opportunity to deal with new section 118 later.

    Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I apologise. Local councillors are particularly concerned about the additional cost that will be imposed on young home buyers in my area. My electorate has the largest number of traditional families in the State. It has the highest proportion of school-age children. These people come to The Hills district to enjoy the lifestyle that is offered and often they stretch themselves to buy their new homes. The Government proposes an additional charge of up to $100,000, putting those houses effectively beyond the reach of those young home owners. I am not quite sure where the Government expects those young people to end up. Maybe like so many other citizens of New South Wales they will be forced interstate, the only place they will be able to afford a house.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.02 p.m.]: I want to make a point in relation to interjections during the contribution by the honourable member for The Hills about the appropriateness or otherwise of the infrastructure fund. One must consider whether the fund will necessarily be directed to just the development of properties. The amendment will affect the most people in growth areas if the Minister looks at various subdivisions and determines that it will be applied to particular developments. This fund will see an increase of up to $300,000 per block of land in development areas.

    The honourable member for Camden is in the Chamber. Regardless of his policies, he should speak in opposition to this amendment, which actually seeks to target the growth areas of Camden, Wollondilly, Londonderry and Riverstone. The honourable member for Camden knows that not long ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Utilities and Energy, I was in his electorate and met with his council. I heard the concerns it had about development in his electorate, which he was doing very little about. Now, in addition to that development, under this amendment the Government will whack up to $300,000 onto the price of a block of land.

    That is a totally reprehensible position, which the Opposition opposes. I call on the honourable member for Camden to stand up in this Chamber—he does not like to do that very often—and tell us his position on the $300,000 additional tax. The honourable member for Camden does not speak out in opposition to the bill, and, in addition, he does not oppose the fact that the Minister is only obliged to comply with one of three paragraphs in amendment No. 1. The honourable member for Camden does not even have the amendment so he does not know what I am talking about. He should read it because it is quite disturbing. I say to members representing Camden, Londonderry, Riverstone and Wollondilly, whose areas and families will be affected by an additional State Labor tax of up to $300,000, that they should take note of the amendment and should oppose the Minister in this Chamber because he is not loved by people in the areas of Camden, Riverstone or Wollondilly; they do not trust him.

    Mr Michael Daley: Yes, he is. They love him everywhere.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD: They do not trust you either and they never will trust you. You look like one of those clowns that bounce up and down. This amendment, taken with the legislation as it stands, says that the money will become a tax. However, under new section 94EL the funds that are raised under this amendment can actually be applied to anything; there is no limit. New section 94EL states:

    (c) all other money directed or authorised to be paid from the Fund by this Act or by the regulations under this Act—

    The regulations have not been promulgated, so we do not know where the moneys will ever go. In fact, they may go nowhere; they may go towards shoring up the Government in totally different areas. This is a reprehensible amendment and a reprehensible Government,

    Mr Michael Daley: Spell it.

    Mr BRAD HAZZARD: How can I spell your name? I have not learnt your name yet. This is a reprehensible bill and a reprehensible amendment. It may be just a case of "I am Frank, trust me", but we do not trust him. The young families of the north-west, the west and the south-west of Sydney—the families the Government will hit with another $300,000 tax for an infrastructure fund—will demand that Labor members of Parliament stop sitting there grinning like Cheshire cats and stand up and oppose the bill.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [9.07 p.m.]: This bill is a rerun of another bill introduced here many years ago. If my recollection serves me correctly it was called the Land Development Contribution Bill, which was introduced by a former Coalition Government specifically to impose levies on land that was rezoned. The tax was to be paid by the purchaser of the land. Although none of the members opposite were here at that time—although they look as though they could have been—the Labor Party complained that the tax would force up the price of land for young couples. Labor said it was an iniquitous tax, and it was. However, this State Labor Government is now revisiting and introducing something that was a proven failure in the 1960s and 1970s. Everyone knows that young people find it very difficult to buy land. Now, Geoff, you are right in the heart of this, mate. This is your day of judgment.

    Mr Geoff Corrigan: Point of order: I think it is appropriate that the honourable member for Baulkham Hills address me by my title.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills will direct his comments through the Chair. I ask the Minister for Gaming and Racing to come to order. It does not help if he continually provokes the Opposition.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON: It certainly does not, particularly as he is on such shaky ground.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The honourable member for Baulkham Hills will return to the leave of the amendment.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON: I am pleased to, and I will not affectionately call him Geoff but the honourable member for Camden. He represents that electorate but he is now bolting for the door because he does not want to hear me say that he is about to betray the people who will buy in south-western Sydney who will have to pay an extra $300,000 for a block of land. They can blame the honourable member for Camden because he is selling them down the drain. The predecessor of the honourable member for Maroubra stood in this same Chamber some 30 years and said this would be the end of the world, with dire consequences following the introduction of the land development contributions tax. The honourable member, as a practising lawyer, cannot remember that tax but I recall it was a 30 per cent tax payable to the Government on the difference between the price of the land prior to rezoning and the actual sale price. People had to apply for a section 55 certificate. Home owners will have to pay the $300,000 and will be denied the ability to buy a home.

    Mr Michael Daley: Tell the truth.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON: I am telling the truth. The difference is that the honourable member for Maroubra does not want to hear the truth. These champagne socialists are just talking about theory: the Opposition is talking about real young Australians who will be denied the ability to purchase a home because of this Government's attitude. The Australian Labor Party was right 30 years ago when it condemned that tax and the Government is wrong tonight when it imposes this measure on the people of New South Wales. The Government is a pack of Judases. It is full of two-bob socialists. It does not care what happens to battlers or ordinary Australians. The Government has an agenda to get more money, even though it has enjoyed years of economic prosperity. The Government has blown $5 billion in extra stamp duty and cannot explain where it has gone. This is a desperate Government that is trying to get money out of young couples. The Opposition will oppose the legislation to the end.

    The Opposition is interested in young people but the honourable member for Maroubra does not care about them and thinks this is funny. The honourable member for Camden, who sits on the fence, could not take the pressure and has left the Chamber. On a day in March 2007 the people of Camden will not sit on the fence. It will goodbye Geoff, goodbye to the honourable member for Camden, because he has betrayed the people of his electorate. This bill betrays the people of New South Wales and every member of the Australian Labor Party who supports it. The Government is selling off the chances of young people getting a home. That is the reality, no matter which way one looks at this legislation. By imposing an additional tax over and above section 94 contributions the Government will sell those people down the drain and deny them a chance to get a home. That is what the Government is about.

    Members of the Government should hang their heads in shame and disgrace. A Labor Government is supposed to be interested in ordinary battlers—ordinary is the great expression used by the failed Federal leader Kim Beasley—and tonight they are being betrayed. The Government is betraying young Australian families because of its greed to clutch money for infrastructure that it should have paid out of its own revenue channels. The Government has completely messed up the State's finances. It has had record revenues with nothing to show for it. The shortfall in the budget is heading towards $500 million and what is it doing about it? The Government is whipping up another tax.

    The day of judgment for the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Maroubra will be in March 2007, when the people will say they have had enough. The Australian Labor Party was 100 per cent right when the Coalition Government imposed this tax 30 years ago and it should read the debate that occurred at that time. The Australian Labor Party was right then, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong in years to come. What happened to that legislation? The then Coalition Government was forced to repeal its legislation because it did not work. If this Government has guts it will do the same. New South Wales will be in a greater mess, housing will become less affordable , and the Government will bear the brunt.

    The Government should think about this very serious matter because it will deny young Australians the right to get their own home. No-one should laugh about this matter. The Minister should look at this matter carefully. I do not know whether the Minister understands that he is imposing another tax. Development of a block of land costs almost $100,000, but when this additional tax is paid, which will be passed on to purchasers, it will cost $150,000 to $200,000 or more.

    Mr Michael Daley: How much is it? You don't even know how much it is. You are just plucking a figure out of the air. You are guessing.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON: Listen, eastern suburbs, when Bob left the seat he must have left you an instruction manual in the cupboard: play the court jester, play the fool and give crummy arguments without any substance. If you are half smart you will throw that book away.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The member will direct his comments through the Chair. The honourable member for Maroubra will stop interjecting.

    Mr WAYNE MERTON: The honourable member for Maroubra is not bright enough to be the court jester; that is his trouble. He is nowhere near Bob in the IQ stakes. He will never be the court jester. To be a stand-up comedian you have to have brains. It is regrettable that when they allocated brains the honourable member for Maroubra came a pretty poor third. He is sniggering away and arguing over amounts like that, but when the first young couple comes in and says they have been to north-western Sydney trying to buy a block of land that has increased from $400,000 to $625,000 what will he say? He will be able to tell them, "We sold you out. We sold you short. We stuffed up." I bet he will not tell them that. What will he tell them? Will the honourable member for Maroubra explain to them that the price of land has increased $200,000 or $300,000 because of this Government's mismanagement? Is it greed? Whatever it is, it is a monstrous failure. The honourable member should make a death-bed conversion, realise the error of his ways, and support the Opposition's amendment which gives young people a chance, because the Government's amendment gives them no hope.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): If there is no further debate on that further proposition—

    Mr Chris Hartcher: The Minister in reply?

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Does the Minister wish to reply? If not, I shall—

    Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: There have been some very serious assertions put by the Coalition. I can do this.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Not as a point of order. It is not a point of order.

    Mr Brad Hazzard: You have asked the Minister if he wants to reply. I ask him now to respond.

    Mr Michael Daley: That's not a point of order.

    Mr Brad Hazzard: You wouldn't know what a point of order is.

    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order!! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.

    Question—That the amendment of Legislative Council amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

    The Committee divided.
    Ayes, 36
            Mr Aplin
            Mr Armstrong
            Mr Barr
            Ms Berejiklian
            Mr Cansdell
            Mr Constance
            Mr Draper
            Mrs Fardell
            Mr Fraser
            Mrs Hancock
            Mr Hartcher
            Mr Hazzard
            Mrs Hopwood            		Mr Humpherson
            Mr Kerr
            Mr McTaggart
            Mr Merton
            Ms Moore
            Mr Oakeshott
            Mr O'Farrell
            Mr Page
            Mr Piccoli
            Mr Pringle
            Mr Richardson
            Mr Roberts
            Ms Seaton            		Mr Stoner
            Mrs Skinner
            Mr Slack-Smith
            Mr Souris
            Mr Tink
            Mr Torbay
            Mr J.H. Turner
            Mr R.W. Turner

            Tellers,
            Mr George
            Mr Maguire
    Noes, 47
            Ms Allan
            Mr Amery
            Ms Andrews
            Mr Bartlett
            Ms Beamer
            Mr Black
            Mr Brown
            Mr Campbell
            Mr Chaytor
            Mr Collier
            Mr Corrigan
            Mr Crittenden
            Mr Daley
            Ms D'Amore
            Mr Debus
            Ms Gadiel            		Mr Gaudry
            Mr Gibson
            Mr Greene
            Ms Hay
            Mr Hickey
            Mr Hunter
            Ms Judge
            Ms Keneally
            Mr McBride
            Mr McLeay
            Mr Mills
            Mr Morris
            Mr Newell
            Mr Orkopoulos
            Mr Pearce
            Mrs Perry            		Mr Price
            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
      Question resolved in the negative.

      Amendment of amendment negatived.

      Legislative Council amendment No. 1 agreed to.

      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)) [9.25 p.m.]: I move:

      That Legislative Council amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

      Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.25 p.m.]: I move:

      That the amendment be amended by inserting at the end:

      "(c) is to be tabled in each House of Parliament; and

      (d) may be disallowed by either House of Parliament by resolution upon notice given within 14 days of tabling."

      The Government inserted Legislative Council amendment No. 2 in the bill with the aim of ensuring that the Minister was required to state reasons for the infrastructure contributions he imposed and to make those reasons publicly available. However, that does not achieve the Government's stated objective, which is to ensure that the people of New South Wales retain sovereignty and oversight over the processes imposed by the Minister. The only way the people of New South Wales can retain oversight over the Minister's decisions is to ensure that Parliament retains that oversight. That is why the amendment provides for the Minister's reasons and the criteria advanced by him to be placed before the Parliament, and for the Parliament to have the right to disallow the criteria and/or the reasons.

      That does not imply that the Coalition in any way supports what the Minister is seeking to do. It simply makes the point that finally the Minister will be accountable to the Parliament for the decision-making process, and the people of New South Wales will have a final say about the Minister's decisions. The Minister is seeking to aggrandise to himself total power over the regional contribution levies; he will decide what the levies will be. The people of New South Wales will only be able to find out the reasons the Minister is imposing the levies, but they will be able to exercise some oversight over the Minister's decisions through their elected representatives. Under this regime, the Minister is seeking to ensure that the State Government requires all home buyers to contribute to what are normally State Government expenses, that is, schools, hospitals, police and community centres. The Minister is saying that all matters that would normally be carried by the State Government should be borne by future home buyers, and he is not prepared to allow any oversight of that decision.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.29 p.m.]: The amendment moved by the Government is interesting in the sense that two weeks ago the Government brought to this House a bill that it purported to be a bill the House should accept in its entirety. In the upper House the Government was forced to undertake the consultation that the Opposition had been calling for. As a result, the Government found that its bill was fundamentally defective. Instead of suspending debate on the bill and allowing all members the opportunity to properly consider its provisions, the Government moved and accepted a number of amendments in the upper House. The Legislative Council amendment under consideration is yet another of the Government's reprehensible amendments. It does nothing but add a sweetener to the pill. It provides that the Minister's determination "is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions"—that is, to the Infrastructure Fund—"and is to be made publicly available by the Minister." Big deal!

      Effectively, the amendment means that the Minister for Planning or his Labor successors can make any decision they like on how much extra money will be paid by the families of north-western, western and south-western Sydney for their new blocks. That extra impost could be up to $300,000. The Minister is effectively imposing a tax of up to $300,000 on the young families of north-western, western and south-western Sydney. It will be interesting to find out whether some Government members sitting in this Chamber right now will say anything. I refer to the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Riverstone, the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Macquarie Fields. They should speak up now on behalf of the families in their electorates who will be forced to make an additional payment of anything up to $300,000 to the Infrastructure Fund. Those members are interjecting, but they will not say anything in the Chamber about that additional impost. This is their opportunity, as members elected to Parliament to represent their constituents, to reject this additional tax on the families in their areas.

      The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford aims to amend the Government's amendment to provide some accountability in the Minister's determinations—and just some! It states that after the Minister has given so-called reasons for his determination of the level and nature of the development contributions, and after he has made his determination publicly available, he is to table those in each of the Houses of this Parliament. What an extraordinary provision! Parliament wants to see what the Minister is doing to the families of New South Wales, especially the families of north-west Sydney, western Sydney and south-west Sydney—families that will pay an additional tax of up to $300,000 on their blocks of land. The Opposition supports the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gosford, because that amendment provides for some accountability in the Minister's determinations. But we oppose the bill and we oppose the Government amendment.

      Mr Frank Sartor: Nonsense!

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is not nonsense. This is a “Trust me, I'm Frank” bill. We do not trust you, Frank. We do not. The honourable member for Bathurst might, because he does not live in an area whose constituents will be affected by these extra payments to the Infrastructure Fund. But the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Riverstone, the honourable member for Camden and the honourable member for Macquarie Fields, who do not want this extra Infrastructure Fund payment, should stand up and vote that way.

      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Chamber will come to order.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: If those members do not vote against this additional payment, the people in the electorates of Londonderry, Riverstone, Camden and Macquarie Fields should ensure that their Labor members of Parliament, who backed Minister Sartor's $300,000 infrastructure tax, are thrown out at the next election.

      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! All members will come to order.

      Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.32 p.m.]: It is interesting that the Government should have introduced a piece of legislation that is so defective that it then saw fit to move and accept a significant number of amendments to it in the upper House. Proposed section 94EE is particularly deficient because it virtually gives the Minister carte blanche in determining the scale of the development contributions. What seriously concerns me—and should concern all members of this Chamber—is that proposed subsection 94EE (4) as inserted by schedule 1 to the bill provides:

      A person cannot appeal to the Court under this Act in respect of a determination of the Minister under this section.

      There is no avenue of appeal—none whatsoever! The Minister is to be the sole determiner of the scale of the development contribution. The Government's amendment of its own bill will insert a new subsection (4) of the section, providing:
      The determination of the Minister:

      (a) is to contain reasons for the level and nature of the development contributions, and

      (b) is to be made publicly available by the Minister.

      That simply does not go far enough. It is a token gesture offered to crossbenchers in the upper House to woo them across. Well, the people of New South Wales will not be wooed across. They will make their decision on 24 March next year—and it will not be in the Government's favour! This bill will be one of the key pieces of legislation that will cause the demise of the Iemma Government. The amendment moved in this Chamber by the honourable member for Gosford seeks to restore a degree of sanity and at least some accountability to the Minister on this issue. The honourable member for Gosford has moved that the determination on the quantum of the development contribution is to be tabled in each House of Parliament, and that it may be disallowed by either House of Parliament by resolution upon notice given within 14 days of tabling. That is what currently happens regarding regulations, and it is what Coalition members think should happen with these development contributions.

      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! About three-quarters of the members in the Chamber are conducting private conversations. I ask those members to do so outside the Chamber so that the rest of us can continue with the business of the Committee.

      Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: After all, Parliament is the supreme law-making body in this State, and Parliament should have the final say on the size of those contributions. Parliament can determine whether they are reasonable, or whether they are excessive. Knowing the way that this Government operates, and understanding that here it is essentially introducing a new tax on young home buyers in this State, you can bet your bottom dollar that that contribution will be excessive. Anything that the Minister brings down in the way of a development contribution will be excessive. What really concerns me about the bill is that there is no way of redressing the Minister's determination after he has made it.

      Amendment of amendment negatived.

      Legislative Council amendment No. 2 agreed to.

      Motion by Mr Frank Sartor agreed to:

      That Legislative Council amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 be agreed to.

      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)) [9.36 p.m.]: I move:

      That Legislative Council amendment No. 6 be agreed to.

      Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.37 p.m.]: The Opposition will not move an amendment; it will vote against the motion to defeat the Legislative Council's amendment. The panel system introduced by the Minister in his bill will prevent local councils from making development decisions and vest those decisions in the Minister or in his creation. The panel to be appointed by the Minister—panels that he is now limiting in time—are still panels of his creation. They are not panels representative of the community. The panel members are people that the Minister chooses and trusts, but they will be people in whom the community cannot repose any trust or confidence, because at the end of the day they will be the Minister's puppets. He will use them as his delegates and substitutes—not to make the decision himself, but to delegate it to a group of people in whom he has confidence. That is not sensible town planning. It is ministerial planning one level removed.

      Mr Frank Sartor: You supported it, and so does the former Leader of the Opposition.

      Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The Minister mischievously argues that the former Leader of the Coalition, the former member for Pittwater, supported panels. The former member for Pittwater and Leader of the Opposition, John Brogden, argued for panels as recommendation bodies, not as the deciding authorities. The Minister is making them deciders. John Brogden argued that their role be analysis, community participation and recommendation. The Minister is being mischievous in misrepresenting the Coalition's position. We believe that at the end of the day local communities are best equipped to make local decisions. Instead, the Minister will have ministerial power vested in him or, one step removed, in panels that he will create and whose members he will appoint and control. This amendment is simply an attempt by the Minister to entrench his position over a period of time. He moved this amendment at the behest of the Christian Democratic Party in the Legislative Council, and it is rejected.

      Legislative Council Amendment No. 6 agreed to.

      Motion by Mr Frank Sartor agreed to:

      That Legislative Council amendment No. 7 be agreed to.

      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)) [9.40 p.m.]: I move:

      That Legislative Council amendments Nos 8 and 9 be agreed to.

      Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.40 p.m.]: Amendments Nos 8 and 9 relate to the appointment of planning administrators or panels. The Coalition does not accept the Minister's power to appoint planning administrators or panels, for the simple reason that, once again, he is seeking control. This is merely a device so that he can avoid making the decision himself and instead vest it in administrators or panels that he appoints. It is the total aggregation of power in the Minister and his delegates, an ongoing attempt by him to destroy all stages of development in this State—with the exception of being able to glass in your veranda. Under these clauses, even the smallest scale of developments can be vested in the Minister. He will have total power. It is his administrator, his planning panel. Accordingly, the amendments moved by the Minister are not supported.

      Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [9.41 p.m.]: Earlier the Minister referred to a letter that I had written to him about the Central Sydney Planning Committee. I wish to make some comments about the Central Sydney Planning Committee in relation to this part of the amendments that relates to setting up panels. I repeat the point I made in my contribution to the second reading debate about the undemocratic nature of what the Minister is seeking to do. I want to reflect upon the Central Sydney Planning Committee, which was set up by the Greiner Government in 1989, when we had the carve up of the city of Sydney. I did not support that legislation at that time and was very concerned about the people who made up the members of the Central Sydney Planning Committee when it was first established. Indeed, over many years I made numerous submissions to that committee because I was concerned about decisions it was making.

      The argument put forward at the time Parliament established the Central Sydney Planning Committee—Parliament established the Central Sydney Planning Committee, not the Minister—was that the Central Sydney Planning Committee was needed for Sydney because the Sydney central business district—the central business district of Australia's only global city—was different. It was different from every other local government area in the State, and probably the country. It was a special case. It needed special considerations for developments over $15 million because it was dealing with the central Sydney planning district. Parliament established that the members of that committee would not be chosen in an arbitrary way, as this legislation provides for. Instead, it would be the Director General of Planning, the Government Architect and two other appointees with particular qualifications. Currently we have Neil Bird with planning and architectural qualifications, and we have Antoinette Le Marchant with special education qualifications.

      As I said in my letter to the Minister, I believe that the current Central Sydney Planning Committee works very well because of the people who are on it and because it is a special case—a special case, making decisions about central Sydney planning. I also point out that the Central Sydney Planning Committee does not make decisions behind closed doors. The Central Sydney Planning Committee makes decisions in the City of Sydney council chamber. Developers and members of the community can come and address that committee and those decisions are made in an open forum. That is not what we have before us. What we have before us is an arbitrary basis to set up these panels and administrators without having to give any reason.

      I remind the House that this Minister, when he was Lord Mayor of Sydney, called upon Peter Macdonald, John Hatton and me, when we held the balance of power, to oppose Gerry Peacocke's threat to sack his council. I supported him at that time for the very reason I am opposing his legislation now, which is going against the interests of all local government communities.

      Mr Frank Sartor: This is not about sacking councils; this is about avoiding sacking councils.

      Ms CLOVER MOORE: You are so hypocritical! You are so hypocritical, Frank Sartor! You were a local government representative for 12 years and then became a Minister, and you now treat other local government representatives with contempt. It is appalling! I am so disappointed. I was expecting so much more from you as planning Minister. I think of how you called for reforms to the court. What we have now is an attempt to emasculate democratic processes and deny local communities their right to be involved in their communities and in the planning process. It is a real indictment on you. It is an indictment on the Government and an indictment on the Shooters Party, David Oldfield and Fred Nile, who supported you.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.45 p.m.]: With regard to amendments Nos 8 and 9, it is interesting to note that if the Government had done all the consulting it should have done, this bill would not now be requiring amendment. These amendments should not have been necessary if the Government had engaged in the consultation one would expect of a government proposing to make such substantive changes to planning processes. The Minister should look at what the amendments contain. He may have got it wrong. Just on a technicality, amendment No. 7 comes in after amendment No. 5 and therefore becomes the new No. 6. I think it should be looked at because I think the Government has got the numbers wrong. I think we should be up to amendment No. 8, rather than No. 7.

      The real problem with this is the panel and the administrator. What the Government is seeking to do here, yet again, is simply to override the local community through the establishment of an administrator or a panel. I drew attention to concerns expressed by members of the Opposition and made my views known during the second reading debate. Those concerns have not in any way been curtailed by these amendments. Our concerns remain. The Minister is attempting to override democracy. Unfortunately, even if the Minister believes that councils sometimes have to take a little time and that their democratic processes are a little tardy, the option of having tardy democracy is far better than a lousy dictatorship. These amendments amount to Dictator Sartor getting to override the local communities. I know that local communities sometimes get it wrong. I know that sometimes they take a little too long—

      Mr Frank Sartor: Not communities, councils.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister seeks to distinguish between communities and councils. The councils are our communities.

      Mr Frank Sartor: They think they are the community; they are often not.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Councils are the representatives of our communities, and under the Local Government Act they our elected to represent those communities. They should have the final right to make decisions that affect them. Frank, the fact is that you do not know the first thing about the electorate of Wakehurst. You currently have another effort called in at Oxford Falls and local members and the local community are totally opposed to the proposed development at Oxford Falls. You just do not understand our area. The bottom line is that councils, for all their sins and all their failures, do understand the local areas. I have no doubt that this is a very unfortunate exercise. It is an attack on democracy. Frank, I think that probably only you could have convinced the Labor Party that this attack on democracy is an appropriate way to go to override communities and councils.

      Mr Frank Sartor: This is about accountability, Brad.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister says it is about accountability. There is absolutely no accountability on your part. You can do what you damned well like. You can set up panels—

      The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! The Minister will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Wakehurst will direct his comments through the Chair.

      Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister who just made those odious comments can absolutely ignore democracy and, so far as accountability is concerned, there is none. There is no accountability in the bill and none in these amendments. At the end of the day he has destroyed, for councils and for communities, the power to determine their own future and he will hang for that.

      Legislative Council amendments Nos 8 and 9 agreed to.

      Resolution reported from Committee.

      Adoption of Report

      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)) [9.51 p.m.]: I move:

      That the report be now adopted.

      The House divided.

      Ayes, 47
              Ms Allan
              Mr Amery
              Ms Andrews
              Mr Bartlett
              Ms Beamer
              Mr Black
              Mr Brown
              Mr Campbell
              Mr Chaytor
              Mr Collier
              Mr Corrigan
              Mr Crittenden
              Mr Daley
              Ms D'Amore
              Mr Debus
              Ms Gadiel              		Mr Gaudry
              Mr Gibson
              Mr Greene
              Ms Hay
              Mr Hickey
              Mr Hunter
              Ms Judge
              Ms Keneally
              Mr Lynch
              Mr McBride
              Mr McLeay
              Mr Mills
              Mr Morris
              Mr Newell
              Mr Orkopoulos
              Mr Pearce              		Mrs Perry
              Mr Price
              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, 35
              Mr Aplin
              Mr Barr
              Ms Berejiklian
              Mr Cansdell
              Mr Constance
              Mr Draper
              Mrs Fardell
              Mr Fraser
              Mrs Hancock
              Mr Hartcher
              Mr Hazzard
              Mrs Hopwood              		Mr Humpherson
              Mr Kerr
              Mr McTaggart
              Mr Merton
              Ms Moore
              Mr Oakeshott
              Mr O'Farrell
              Mr Page
              Mr Piccoli
              Mr Pringle
              Mr Richardson
              Mr Roberts              		Ms Seaton
              Mrs Skinner
              Mr Slack-Smith
              Mr Souris
              Mr Stoner
              Mr Tink
              Mr Torbay
              Mr J. H. Turner
              Mr R.W. Turner
              Tellers,
              Mr George
              Mr Maguire
      -
      Question resolved in the affirmative.

      Motion agreed to.

      Report adopted.

      Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.


    Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:33   :   Update this page