Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008
Building Professionals Amendment Bill 2008
Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 15 May 2008.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.37 p.m.]: I lead for the New South Wales Liberal Party and The Nationals on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 and cognate bills. Potentially, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill involves one of the major changes in the planning law framework since 1979, and is also one of the most damaging bills to the planning framework. The Coalition believes that achieving an appropriate framework in planning law is critical to the economic and environmental sustainability of New South Wales.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation, which is making it difficult for Hansard to record the proceedings of the House.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Maximum consultation with the community and the various specialists who understand the planning law would have been desirable. Indeed, there should have been a dialogue with the community, with those who are at the front line of any damaging policy decisions that the Government may bring about. In the twenty-first century the New South Wales community expects and demands transparency and honesty in its government's dealings with it; and it is entitled to that transparency and honesty. The community expects that prior to major change there should be a dialogue between the Government and the community. The Government should listen and reflect the community's expectations. Prior to the introduction of the 1979 Act, which is current, extensive consultation took place over some years. Eventually it led to a massive overhaul of the planning laws and, as I said, to the current Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Many submissions about this bill have been made to the Opposition by interested parties and a number have contrasted the almost indecent haste and lack of substantive consultation that has taken place in the context of this bill to the more careful process of consultation that occurred prior to the 1979 legislation. Even without the immediate experience of having been involved in the lead-up to the 1979 legislation it has been very obvious to me that the so-called consultation about this bill has been largely contrived and lacking in transparency. Minister Frank Sartor announced the review of planning law in early 2007. By 14 August 2007 there was a New Ideas for Planning forum, which took place at the Australian Technology Park, and for which invited groups were asked to pay $250 per head.

As shadow Minister I sent my cheque for $250 with a certain wry amusement that the Labor Party was effectively getting donations in the planning and consultation phase of this bill. I note in passing that some weeks later my cheque came back to me, but many others I am sure contributed to government coffers and many others who could not afford to go—perhaps that is the more significant issue—were unable to contribute their policy ideas. On the day in question Minister Sartor was joined on stage by a number of parties, including Ken Morrison, on behalf of the Property Council. It seemed to me that the Minister had already drawn certain conclusions as to what was required in the bill. It was not so much about listening; it was more about telling.

The so-called discussion paper was then issued in November 2007 and submissions were sought. Not one of the submissions was publicly released by the Labor Government. Indeed, to this moment not one of those submissions has been released by the Labor Government. In March 2008 a summary of submissions, as interpreted by the Government, was released. On 3 April 2008 the first form of the bill was released. It was termed a draft bill. It contained a number of absolutely outrageous provisions, which appeared as if from nowhere. One such provision was contained in schedule 5, section 9A, which facilitated compulsory acquisition of a person's property to allow the on-sale to developers for profit or for no profit. That was probably part of some broader deal that Labor planned to do with developers from time to time. The draft bill was appropriately condemned on the basis of a number of such outrageous provisions, but also by many members of the community and professional groups, who considered that the broader aspects of the bill were also inappropriate. I will address some of these aspects in due course.

Let us understand clearly that the Liberal-Nationals alternative government believes it is necessary—indeed critical—that we get planning law right. We believe that the planning law as amended inappropriately by Labor in 1997 and again in 2005—the latter being the occasion when Minister Sartor determined he would be the consent authority for major projects—needs a complete overhaul. In government, the Liberal-Nationals will implement a major review of planning law with a view to striking the right balance, ensuring there is a planning framework that appropriately protects our natural and built environments while at the same time minimising unnecessary bureaucracy.

We do not believe that the bill before the House will achieve those objectives. We believe the bill runs the grave risk of increasing the delays in dealing with planning matters and, in an ostensible effort to reduce reliance on lawyers and legal proceedings, it will in fact do precisely the reverse. The question has to be asked why this Government accepts so readily the concept of diminishing the capacity of local communities to have a say on their local built and natural environments and then ensure there is limited opportunity, if any, to seek redress through the Land and Environment Court, which has been hailed as a model for planning review processes.

The Liberal-Nationals alternative government has engaged extensively with local government—the 152 councils across the State—elected officials and staff of those councils, peak professional groups, including the Planning Institute of Australia, Urban Development Institute of Australia, Urban Taskforce, Property Council, Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Sydney Chamber of Commerce, Tourism and Transport Forum, Master Builders Association, Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, Planning Committee of the New South Wales Law Society, New South Wales Bar Association, and a broad range of environmental groups and community members. In addition we have received copies of some submissions sent to the Government and, as I said earlier, not formally released by the Government. I thank those parties that considered it appropriate to send the Liberal-Nationals copies of their submissions, as clearly the Government had no intention of releasing those submissions publicly.

Major submissions were received from many councils as well as the Environmental Defender's Office, Total Environment Centre, Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales and National Trust New South Wales. On behalf of the Coalition I acknowledge the passion with which many of these groups applied great energy to their submissions and viewpoints. It makes it all the more disappointing that Minister Sartor and State Labor appear to have been on a pre-determined trajectory on planning reform, largely uninfluenced by the weight of community views. I acknowledge and respect the arguments put forward by the Property Council and other major property advocacy groups that have moved to a position of wanting this bill approved. I acknowledge that that is their position.

The Opposition is sympathetic to their frustration with the current planning system but is not convinced that providing unqualified support for this bill would give them a better framework within which to operate. I note that a group calling itself the Coalition for New South Wales Planning Reform has moved to a position of support for the bill. However, it seems to the Liberal-Nationals Coalition that much of what they believe they will get from this legislation is little more than a mirage. If it were as good as the State Labor Government has presented to the Coalition for New South Wales Planning Reform one suspects there would be far greater support from professional planners, architects and lawyers more broadly than just the peak groups that are brought together on this body under the chairmanship of the Property Council. We are extremely sympathetic to the thirst for reform, but it must be good reform. It must be reform that reflects what the residents and business community of New South Wales need to strike the balance on future development.

I return to the issue of lack of appropriate consultation. Amongst many submissions that I have read was one from senior counsel—M. G. Craig, QC, P. W. Larkin and C. D. Norton. Early in their submission they state:

Prior to 1979, there were a wide variety of Courts, tribunals and review boards, which heard merit appeals in local Government and environmental matters. The Land and Environment Court was established to create a single body to deal with all merits appeal and judicial review functions relating to such matters.

The 1979 amendments sought to bring some coordination to the appeals process. Sadly, this bill appears to add layers of confusion and bureaucracy in regard to merits-based appeals. In other words, the bill does not impact on the judicial review aspects of the legislation but does redefine the merits-based aspects. It is interesting to note that, as highlighted by the submission of senior counsel to whom I referred, there was a review in 2001 by the current State Labor Government. A working party was established and various senior and appropriately qualified people were tasked with reviewing whether merit appeals to the Land and Environment Court should be restricted or abolished. According to senior counsel, the report of the working party "reveals that numerous conflicting submissions were received and considered". One statement of particular interest to me reads as follows:

Organisations such as the Council of the City of Sydney made submissions to the effect that merits appeals should generally be taken away from the court and should be conducted by panels.

Whilst learned counsel did not raise this issue in the context of who was Lord Mayor at the time, the Liberal-Nationals note that at the time the City of Sydney was pushing for panels to take over merit reviews the current Minister for Planning was then the Lord Mayor of Sydney. It seems that Minister Sartor brought with him some of his favoured processes and they have found their way into being a dominant feature of this bill, notwithstanding the fact that the panel process, to which I shall refer later, has a reasonable number of qualified opponents. I am sure that the Minister, who is in the Chamber, would be interested to hear my quote. He might have forgotten it, so I will repeat it succinctly for his benefit. Senior counsel also noted that the panel proposals were rejected by the working party and stated:

It is generally accepted that the public interest in administrative law is served by giving members of the public the right to having decisions reviewed by an independent and impartial tribunal. The existence of tribunals carrying out this function, not only provides a fair and just outcome for dissatisfied applicants, but improves the quality of administrative decision making generally.

The working party also stated:

It would be a retrograde step to abandon appeals on the merits.

It concluded that it was "of the opinion that merit planning appeals should remain and be determined by the Land and Environment Court". I thank learned counsel for drawing these matters to the attention of the community through its submission. On behalf of the Liberal-Nationals I express concern that the State Labor Government, through this bill, effectively trashed the recommendations of its own specialist 2001 working party.

Mr Frank Sartor: Nonsense!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes you have, Minister. This bill seeks to entrench panels and to deny, in certain instances, opportunities for review through the Land and Environment Court. I note that the bill purports to develop a more simplified system, but all indications are that it is adding to the complexity. I further note that at the National Trust rally yesterday evening John Mant, urban planner, seemed to be addressing the duplication, what I might term the alternative pathways for applicants and objectors to planning decisions. He referred somewhat succinctly to the Minister's reforms being "infantile". Whether or not his view is correct, it is extremely concerning that this review process has been so poor that a major urban planner such as John Mant should feel disposed to describe the Minister's reforms in such a way. He notes that the bill contains a number of issues including:

widened opportunities for conflict of interest.

the regulated selecting and paying the person who regulates them.

one public body being accountable for the costs and actions of someone beholden to another public body.

the exercise of a judicial function by people who are not provided with the normal judicial protections such as the security of tenure and freedom from executive retribution.

banning representation of people appearing before judicial type bodies even when facing parties who can directly employ staff who are well qualified, experienced advocates.

Mr Mant has been briefed by the Local Government Association to reflect its concerns about this bill. Not all the concerns of the Local Government Association are shared by professional bodies or by members of the Government or the Opposition. As I said earlier, it is particularly concerning that the process has been so lacking in consultation and involvement that someone as significant as John Mant has been moved to use the sort of language that he used in last night's presentation to the National Trust.

Mr Frank Sartor: He always uses that language. It is classic Mant. He always uses that language. It is just Mant.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Maybe he uses that language only in the context of—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The dialogue across the Chamber will cease.

Mr Frank Sartor: He has used that language for half a decade.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I have known him for just over a decade and I am yet to hear such language.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will address his remarks through the Chair and the Minister will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It should be acknowledged that the concerns of the Local Government Association are largely, but not entirely, the concerns of the public. I note that there is proper concern amongst many in the community—in particular, the business sector and also mum and dad investors—that councils often fail to act expeditiously on development applications. There is room for councils to look closely at themselves to determine what procedure they might adopt, even under current legislation, to accelerate consideration of planning issues.

Mr Frank Sartor: They have been doing it for 30 years.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister should be quiet. He had a free run earlier. Some councils have moved to the use of voluntary independent hearing and assessment panels [IHAPs], which would appear to have merit in the context of the current entitlement of local councils to represent local views and determine local decisions.

Mr Frank Sartor: They still can.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Point of order—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is noted. The Minister will cease interjecting and inciting the member for Wakehurst, who is trying to focus on an important debate.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, for bringing gravity back to this debate. As I said earlier, there is room for councils to look closely at themselves to determine what procedures they may adopt, even under current legislation, to accelerate consideration of planning issues. IHAPs provide an opportunity for the community to have its say and, in the end, for local elected officials to make the final decision. I note that this bill recognises the voluntary nature of IHAPs. The Government's initially publicly touted support for compulsory IHAPs evaporated earlier in the so-called consultation phase. Under current planning laws there has also been scope for councils to vastly increase the categories of development falling into "exempt" and "complying".

If this bill does not pass through this Parliament the Opposition—the Liberal-Nationals alternative government—encourages councils to look closely at themselves with regard to these issues and other matters that would accelerate consideration of development applications, whilst at the same time not denying community input. The bill also seeks to broaden the use of private certification. Currently private certifiers are primarily involved in the process of supervision after development applications are approved by council. There have been many examples of the need for more rigorous supervision of the process of certifiers doing their work. Certifiers provide choice for the consumer, but thus far the regulatory processes of some certifiers who step outside reasonable boundaries has not been as rigorous as it should have been.

This bill seeks to broaden the responsibility of certifiers in certain instances, in particular, where there is residential development of less than $1 million, and to allow them entry into the regulatory approval process. As John Mant pointed out, there are some inherent conflicts in that broadening of their role. Equally, the certifiers point out that there are some inequities in the provisions of the bill, which limit their capacity to do work for individual developers. From whichever perspective one looks at it there are still aspects about the involvement of private certifiers that might benefit from a close review or inquiry—an issue that I will address shortly. There is also the issue of joint regional planning panels. These panels, which are designed to be on a regional basis, will have members appointed by the Minister for Planning.

Mr Frank Sartor: After consultation.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Pardon? After consultation? The Minister indicates that will happen after consultation. Imagine the level of consultation from Minister Sartor when he sits down and asks, "What do I think? Who should I appoint to these joint regional planning panels?" After much deliberation Minister Sartor decides that he will appoint certain people.

Mr Ray Williams: If they contribute $100,000 or $200,000, that is the question.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Ray Williams: And if it's $200,000 he gets to be appointed.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The dominant members on the panel will be ministerial appointees. In effect, this is the original independent hearing and assessment panel mooted by the Government but reconstructed into a regional forum where a council the subject of a likely decision will be able to nominate two appointees. This proposal is an interesting model. One wonders what councillors will volunteer for appointment to a panel to consider a planning issue in their local area when the majority of members will be Minister Sartor's personal appointees and the local council will be represented by only 2 of 12 panel members.

Why is there any expectation that these joint regional planning panels will be successful in attracting councillors to their ranks? One would assume councillors would step backwards rather than forwards to volunteer as a member of a panel of which their council will not have the dominant numbers and consequently will have to accept any decision handed down. Serious issues are raised about the associated costs of the function of these joint regional planning panels. What this bill is doing is increasing the bureaucracy; adding a layer of bureaucracy. Who will pay for that additional layer? It will not be the State Labor Government.

Mr Ray Williams: It's not Frank.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is not Frank Sartor.

Mr Ray Williams: It is not the Labor Party.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Labor Party collects money; it does not pay out money.

Mr Ray Williams: That's what I'm saying.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury will cease interjecting

Mr Ray Williams: Hey, Frank, I couldn't see over the—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hawkesbury either has a hearing impediment or he is being downright rude to the Chair. I hope it is the former.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The bill contains no provision for the running costs of this additional layer of bureaucracy. Therefore, the councils who make up the areas of the joint regional planning panels presumably will have to find more money from their budgets—for services they would have provided for their communities, such as childcare centres, parks, roads, or whatever—for more bureaucracy.

Mr Thomas George: More red tape.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: More red tape, the member for Lismore said. This proposal is under the guise of a Government saying it is reducing red tape by simplifying the planning process. It will, in fact, do the precise reverse, which is why the Opposition is concerned about the bill. The State Government too readily dismisses the importance of local government; certainly, there has been no indication of a partnership between the former Lord Mayor of Sydney and the current Minister for Planning—in fact, quite the opposite. The situation seems adversarial: no partnership, no dialogue, no discussion. I have mentioned already a few potential local government problems in addressing some aspects, but local government represents ratepayers, the residents of New South Wales. Local government deserves proper, professional and mature dialogue on these important reforms. If this bill passes through this House—indeed, if it passes through the Parliament—how can local government be expected to pay for this additional bureaucracy? The State Government should contribute towards those costs. If it does not, I fail to see the equity in establishing joint regional planning panels.

Beyond the joint regional planning panels is the next level of bureaucracy: the Planning Assessment Commission. On the face of it the establishment of the Planning Assessment Commission has some merit. Why? In recent months a great deal of controversy and community debate has emerged regarding corruption in Wollongong City Council and whether all developments under the 2005 amendments were brought in appropriately to the planning Minister's office. I remind the House that in 2005 part 3A of the Act was amended to allow Minister Sartor to call in developments and to bring in—

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: More money.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: To bring in more money to the Labor Party, potentially. That was the debate.

Ms Linda Burney: People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: People who come from France should not throw stones either!

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will ignore interjections. The Minister will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Planning Assessment Commission brings into focus the whole question of corruption around this State Labor Government; the stench of corruption did not just waft up from Wollongong, it blew across the State. Of course, it raises further issues and reminds us that part 3A has been a conduit for massive amounts of donations to the Labor Party. That legislation has been used and abused by the State Labor Party. I am not reflecting necessarily on the Minister; it is a systemic dysfunctionality of the New South Wales Labor Party that if it has some way of cajoling people into putting tens of thousands of dollars on the table, it will do it. That is what Labor is good at.

Remember the comments of the member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay: "Don't worry guys, I'll fix it." She was going to fix it before she even knew what it was about! She did know the amount of money coming into the Labor Party coffers. What about Mr Bitar? I understand that the New South Wales system—not necessarily known to individual Ministers, and not necessarily known to Minister Sartor—is that Mr Bitar makes it known that if someone wants to see a Labor Minister, he or she must cough up $100,000. That has been confirmed to me time and again. As the shadow Minister for Planning my eyes have been opened to a whole new world and the behaviour of the Labor Party. The planning laws of New South Wales are like Aladdin's cave for the Labor Party: it is an incredible resource, much of which reverts back to the 2005 amendments to part 3A. Those amendments have been utterly used and abused by State Labor.

Ms Marie Andrews: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I draw your attention to the member's comments. I ask you to draw him back to the leave of the bill. He is talking about things that are not contained in the amending bill.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member for Wakehurst to focus on the bills being debated.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I am. I outlined in the preamble to the point I am making that the Planning Assessment Commission has some merit—they were my words—in the light of what has gone on in the past few years under the State Labor Government. The only modicum of merit in the Planning Assessment Commission is that there is a possibility, albeit on the face of it, that some of the planning decisions that would otherwise have found their way to the Minister's desk may instead end up on the Planning Assessment Commission's desk. I emphasise the word "may".

Mr Frank Sartor: Most.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister says "most", and I say "may". Only time will tell. It will depend on how desperate the Government is for dollars. First, the Planning Assessment Commission creates another level of bureaucracy. Second, it will take over certain developments for its consideration, but only with the Minister's agreement. I ask members to think about that. Those who are concerned about Minister Sartor's role in the planning system in New South Wales should take note that he will choose who is appointed to the Planning Assessment Commission. He will choose his own people, and after he has done that, who chooses which projects go to the Planning Assessment Commission?

Mr Ray Williams: Frank.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Frank Sartor, as the member said.

Mr Frank Sartor: That's it.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister has confirmed it: Frank Sartor. That is the inherent problem with the Planning Assessment Commission, quite apart from the fact that it creates an additional layer of bureaucracy. Whether the commission has merit only time will tell—if the bill is passed by Parliament—but on the face of it, there has to be some concern about a Planning Assessment Commission whose members are appointed by the State Labor Minister for Planning, who is also the recipient of larger amounts of funding than are lots of other Ministers and members of Parliament. Whether that is because of the system, I do not know. I do not purport to reflect personally on Minister Sartor, but it does not look good. Now we come to the next point of concern, the critical infrastructure level. The definition of "critical infrastructure" is wide open. Guess who gets to determine what amounts to critical infrastructure?

Mr Rob Stokes: Frank.

Mr Ray Williams: Frank.

Mr Jonathan O'Dea: Mr Sartor.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Mr Sartor. The member for Davidson shows more respect, as he should as a new member of Parliament. Each member of the Coalition in the Chamber knows the answer—again, it is Minister Sartor who gets to choose what constitutes critical infrastructure and which projects come to his desk. In the absence of recent occurrences in Wollongong and in the absence of massive donations rorts, on which the Labor Party has thrived in the past few years, that would not have great political import, impact or concern. As I have said, I do not cast personal reflections upon Minister Sartor. He has come up with his own ideas for these reforms, and, like them or not, that is really not the issue. The issue is what it looks like in terms of the planning structure that is proposed to be set up. It is not really about Minister Sartor but, rather, about the people who are behind him—those who are in the smoky back dens of Sussex Street, those snake-oil salesmen who are telling people, "If you want to get in to see the Minister, a couple of hundred thousand and you will get in."

Mr Frank Sartor: Really?

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister thought it was more than that?

Mr Frank Sartor: I can think of dozens of people who get in who are just ordinary people.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: As I said, I am not reflecting on the Minister personally at all. I am reflecting on the structure behind him and what those people tell people in the community, the community's perception, and whether these planning reforms will address those perceptions.

There are many other aspects of the bill that raise concerns. The bill is being debated late in the afternoon with an air of urgency about moving through all its stages. Of concern are councils' section 94 levies and the system that the bill proposes to implement. If the bill is passed against the wishes of the Coalition, at least there will be some guidelines, and some guidelines are better than the current situation. But it is of extreme concern that there will be one rule for some and a totally different rule for others—the "others" being the State Labor Party.

I remind the House that it is very difficult to develop property in New South Wales partly because the current planning system is not good and partly because of the major cost of bringing land to the market. In May last year, A. V. Jennings told its shareholders that it would do more work in other States of Australia than in New South Wales because of its regulatory framework and the costs of development. I cannot tell the House how many meetings I have had with major property interests who are the people who really should drive the New South Wales economy. They have told me that the current structures for raising contributions from developments are inequitable and unreasonable.

Those issues are ripe for debate. It is quite clear that the legislation does not provide the same level of guidelines for State Government demands for infrastructure contributions as are provided for section 94 levies. There are no guidelines in place, and that means that the inequities will continue. A great deal of concern has been expressed by local government about the collection of section 94 contributions, which goes to cost transference between the State Government and local government. As I indicated earlier, there is a complete non-existence of partnership and dialogue between the State Labor Government and local government, but we need both. The State Government should recognise that the 152 local councils around the State are at the front line of delivering services to local communities. Those councils need support, recognition and a Government that will discuss issues with them. They also need to understand that section 94 contributions need an appropriately developed management regime rather than a scheme that takes funds from councils and tells councils, "We are going to manage the funds, and you are not."

In October or November last year when the Government was looking for a headline, it announced that it would reduce section 94 levies and the State infrastructure contribution levies by 10 per cent. It is now 3 June 2008 and the Government has provided no clarity about how that will be achieved. However, we know that the Government has backed off at a million miles an hour on the idea of grabbing and managing all the funds. That would appear to have been another lunatic idea of the Treasurer. I do not know why that adjective leapt into my head when I mentioned the Treasurer, but it just jumped out at me. In another lunatic deal, the Treasurer's idea was to announce to the press and the public in October or November last year that all projects providing section 94 levies would be pulled in and managed because the State Government knew how better to manage the funds.

Nobody in the New South Wales community accepts that. After some time the Government was forced to back off. Subject to correction by the Minister if I am wrong, I believe that only the six councils in growth areas will have their funds managed by Treasury. It is difficult to obtain details because, as I have noted, the process has been vague and all over the place like a dog's breakfast—like so much of the Government's policy development. However, the Government did a backflip. As at 3 June, that is the Government's proposal. Who knows what it will be tonight or tomorrow? I think that is the proposal.

Mr Frank Sartor: Councils like that are catching up, Brad. They have been a little slow at catching up.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The Minister has just confirmed as correct what I have said. He just said, "Yes, Brad. You are absolutely right." I heard that. That is good. On behalf of the Labor councils, people like Labor stalwart Leo Kelly, who manifests everything that was good about the good old Labor Party before the current Labor Party took over, have been very critical of the proposal. Mayor Kelly has been slamming Minister Sartor and State Labor about the planning reforms.

Mr Frank Sartor: He's just being Leo.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Is he?

Mr David Harris: He's just got another point of view.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Indeed.

Mr Frank Sartor: It's a broad church, the Labor Party—it's got Leo in it!

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is a broad church and, if it could, I think it would excommunicate the Minister. The process must be clarified. That is why the Opposition is concerned about the bill and why we have decided to act in a certain way in relation to it. The Local Government Association has run a strong campaign: the Keep it Local campaign. It has raised many of the issues that I have highlighted today and, although the Local Government Association may not be correct in every aspect, it is certainly right to demand a seat at the table during discussions. Members will have seen the posters that have been erected across Sydney—I do not know whether they can be found elsewhere—and we congratulate the association on raising issues of concern to the community. However, as I said earlier, it must think also about the way it does business and ensure that, regardless of whether the bill passes this House, it applies planning law as efficiently as possible. Several environment groups have expressed concerns about the legislation. The Total Environment Centre Inc. wrote to the Premier on 3 April 2008, and said:

In recent years, the NSW planning system has shifted away from a system focused on public involvement and transparent and accountable decision-making, to one that is discretionary, ad hoc and that has significantly eroded the community's ability to participate—

Mr David Harris: It strengthens the community's ability to participate.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Does it?

Mr David Harris: It certainly does.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I am glad the member for Wyong thinks so. Unfortunately, the Total Environment Centre and many others in the community do not share that view. The letter states that there has been a shift to a system that is:

discretionary, ad hoc and that has significantly eroded the community's ability to participate in planning processes.

Interestingly—bearing in mind the fact that the Minister has no problem with part 3A and the planning Minister's role—the Total Environment Centre goes on to say:

This has largely stemmed from the introduction of Part 3A to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The centre then suggests six areas for reform:

Require actions under the Act to be consistent with Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD);
Reinstate genuine public participation;
Strengthen environmental assessment provisions;
Remove certain discretions from the Act;
Repeal critical infrastructure provisions; and
Repeal concept plans provisions.

The Total Environment Centre has expressed great concern about the lack of genuine public participation. It states:

We note a fundamental shift in the government's attitude towards community involvement and broad public participation. Opportunities for the public to participate in planning processes have been significantly eroded, primarily in Part 3A. There appears to be a perception that community participation is an administrative and bureaucratic burden rather than a process that can add much value to decision-making. Indeed, genuine public participation adds significant value to government decision-making. This is for three main reasons.

The centre goes on to give those reasons. It also considers strengthening environmental assessment provisions, and states:

We have identified a need to strengthen the environmental assessment provisions in the Act. Environmental assessment under Part 3A is ad hoc, discretionary and unstructured.

I emphasise those three words. It continues:

There is no clearly defined environmental framework within which decisions are to be made. Further, although Parts 4 and 5 of the Act do contain a clearly defined and mandatory process of environmental assessment, there are significant shortcomings.

The part 3A provisions were introduced in 2005—three and a half years ago. The Total Environment Centre points out that there is "no clearly defined environmental framework within which decisions are to be made." I note that the Labor Government said at the time that it would develop guidelines but, for all intents and purposes, the community has none. They have never been published. But this is a great Opposition that has the faith of the people and I have in my desk drawer a copy of the full draft guidelines that the Minister did not want to put into the public domain. Is that cause for concern?

Yes, it is of concern for two reasons. First, the guidelines were never released so the public does not know what they are. Second, and more fundamentally—this is a source of major concern to many in the community and the Opposition—the bill, which contains about 130 pages and is layered upon roughly 150 pages in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, depends in so many ways on what the Government will promulgate through regulations, codes and guidelines. In other words, it is a "Trust me, I'm Frank" bill. The Minister says he will release the guidelines. However, in spite of any goodwill and best intentions on his part, the facts speak for themselves. The part 3A provisions have been in place for three years. They are most significant provisions that have had the biggest effect on planning law since the 1997 amendments and have caused enormous concern about how many dollars are flowing into Labor Party coffers. Yet we have seen none of the guidelines that were promised.

So why would we put our faith and our trust in the unknown? Why would we put our faith and our trust in a few hundred more pages of regulations? I remind the public that those regulations will not come before Parliament. They can be reviewed and possibly rejected but they cannot be discussed and debated in this place. No-one knows the details of guidelines, codes and regulations.

That is the most concerning aspect of this entire debate. The Property Council, the property industry and major businesses in New South Wales that provide stimulus for our economy desperately need appropriate and sensible planning reform. There is absolutely no question about that.

Mr Gerard Martin: That is why they're supporting this bill.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: That is wrong. I will tell the member for Bathurst why they are supporting the bill: they are desperate. I do not reflect on their capacity; they are very capable—far more capable than the member. In fact, I have received letters from most of them outlining the various reforms they would like to see in legislation that is to come before the House. But they believe this bill is the best they will get from this Government for the next three years. Like most of us, they think Minister Sartor might be moved from the Planning portfolio sometime in the next 12 months.

Mr Ray Williams: Very sad.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is very sad, I know. Coalition members are disappointed and the Minister believes it is unthinkable; but it is quite possible. Industry and the business community believe no other Minister has the capacity to do anything so this bill is their last chance. That is a pretty desperate stance, and a concern. If they think this is their last chance, we can understand why they want the bill to pass.

But as a sensible, responsible Opposition it has to listen to that concern. Every member of the Opposition is sympathetic to that concern. The Opposition wants reform and for the reform to be done properly. Sadly, from the point of view of the Opposition it has to make a call as to whether this legislation is sensible and will bring about the necessary reform and, if not, it has to weigh up what it will do. The Opposition has considered each issue I have raised in this debate and, with any sense of responsibility, it cannot support the bill. Therefore, in the Legislative Assembly the Opposition morally, ethically and in every other way thinks it is duty bound to oppose the bill and proposes to do so. In the Legislative Council the Opposition will review that position and look at the possibility of it being referred it to an upper House inquiry.

The Opposition believes there has been utterly inadequate consultation in relation to this bill. Various professional bodies have an incredible wealth and depth of capacity, given the opportunity in an impartial environment, to present their arguments and debate them and to contribute to what they believe is a better planning framework in an upper House inquiry. The Liberal-Nationals alternative government, hopefully with the support of the crossbench, proposes to refer this bill in the upper House to an appropriate inquiry. The Opposition does not believe it should be an interminable inquiry, but it might take six or 12 months of substantial debate and opportunity. In so doing the Opposition calls on the crossbench to consider its position logically and sensibly. The 1979 bill involved approximately 4½ years of consultation before it became an Act and has provided faithfully for us in the past three decades. I do not suggest that is needed now because the problems in New South Wales are so urgent that we need action, but the right action.

If the Opposition accepts blithely the undertakings of the State Australian Labor Party, as occurred in 1997 under Craig Knowles, then the Opposition is not doing its job. In 1997 approximately 60,000 development applications were considered each year by councils. The 1997 planning reforms were thought to be the panacea for all problems and would accelerate the processing times, increase the exemption and complying developments, and would see a massive quickening of decision making. In fact, the time for decision making blew out and development applications doubled from 60,000 to 120,000 per year. The last time State Labor launched itself in this place with big undertakings it destroyed the planning system in New South Wales. It was the genesis of the problems we are now facing today.

I accept that Minister Sartor may well honestly believe that the provisions of this bill will be the panacea for all ills but the truth is that the broader community is entitled to have time in an objective environment to consider the matters and put forward their contributions. The Opposition will oppose the bill in the Legislative Assembly and will seek in the Legislative Council to refer it to an upper House inquiry. In conclusion, whilst the Opposition differs with the Minister for Planning on the way forward, I acknowledge that at least in recent weeks he has made efforts to talk to the Opposition and to discuss the issues, although we have not agreed on many of them. I also thank his staff for their briefings. Andrew Abbey has put up with more in my office than he should have to put up with. I understand that he has a much better time in the office of the Minister. I also thank officers from the Department of Planning who briefed the Opposition. The Opposition will oppose the principal bill and cognate bills in the Legislative Assembly.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps you should thank the Deputy-Speaker for listening to your entire speech.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I thank the Deputy-Speaker, who always brings the appropriate gravitas and rationale to the debate.

Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Minister for Fair Trading, Minister for Youth, and Minister for Volunteering) [4.35 p.m.]: I refer to the Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which is a cognate bill to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. I assume from the very long speech of the member for Wakehurst that the Opposition supports the Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, as he did not mention it. I strongly support the amendments to the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 and the Home Building Act 1989. As the House has already heard from my colleague the Minister for Planning, the proposed amendments are the result of a thorough, extensive and lengthy consultation process involving publication of a detailed discussion paper and draft exposure bills, despite the protestations of members of the Opposition. The feedback from that process was strongly supportive of the proposals.

Specifically, in regard to my portfolio of Fair Trading, only one of the changes from the discussion paper is not proceeding. The proposal to limit the number of proxy votes that any individual can hold was opposed by the majority of submissions that commented on that issue. Those submissions provided strong arguments that such a move could make it difficult to achieve a quorum at meetings of owners' corporations, and might also discriminate against investor owners who are not able to attend meetings in person. The remaining strata management reform recommendations listed in chapter eight of the planning reform discussion paper have received widespread support and are going ahead.

First, amendments will clarify the caretaker provisions of the Act. That amendment will make it crystal clear that the caretaker provisions apply to anyone undertaking the role of a caretaker, regardless of which title is adopted for the position—whether it be "building manager", "residential manager", "caretaker" or some other term. That will close a potential loophole in the law that had led to concerns from strata residents that merely by the use of a job title other than "caretaker" a de facto caretaker would not be bound by the caretaker provisions. They are important provisions which, among other things, limit the length of caretaker contracts to 10 years and prevent a caretaker from using proxy votes to vote themselves a financial benefit, such as a pay rise or an extension to their contract.

The next measure relates to a specific exception on the making of by-laws. Under existing provisions in the Act, a developer cannot make any exclusive use by-laws during the initial period of the scheme except for exclusive use by-laws relating to the parking of vehicles on the common property. The Office of Fair Trading has received complaints about the apparent abuse of this exception. I understand that there have been cases where people have purchased their residence in a strata development, have moved in and only then have become fully aware that the right to permanently occupy visitor parking has been sold or kept for the developer's own use. The exception is being removed from strata management legislation to give owners other than the developer a greater say is such matters.

Another issue that gives rise to significant concerns is the procedure for the granting of proxy voting powers. The Act allows for proxy voting so that strata unit owners who are, for whatever reason, unable to attend meetings of their owners corporation can nevertheless participate and still have a say in the operation of their strata scheme. The Strata Schemes Management Act contains a pro forma proxy voting appointment form and owners can use that to make any person their proxy. When appointing a proxy owners can specify what matters can be voted on and how, or they can leave this open. Either way, an appointment is still limited to 12 months or for two consecutive annual general meetings, after which it automatically expires. Owners can also rescind a proxy appointment at any time or replace it with a new one.

The person appointing a proxy to vote in his or her place retains the right to override the appointment and can do so by turning up at the meeting to cast his or her vote in person. The current proxy voting provisions were carefully designed and drafted to provide owners with the flexibility they need to take account of the wide variety of circumstances in which they live and work. This makes it all the more disappointing to see unscrupulous developers circumventing the legislation by finding ways to remove owners' rights to vote in owners corporation meetings or direct the use of their proxy vote as they wish.

The practice of some developers of including proxy appointment conditions in contracts for sale of strata residences is of great concern to many strata owners, owners corporations and the Government. These clauses are generally included in the sale contract as a mandatory requirement for the sale of the strata unit. Suggestions that the buyer can ask for the offending term to be removed from the contract before it is signed are usually met with the response that they can go and buy a unit elsewhere. These contract terms require the potential buyer to give the developer unconditional and sometimes permanent proxy voting rights or power of attorney.

Any attempt by the owner to assert his or her rights to vote at an owners corporation meeting or appoint someone else as his or her proxy could be considered a breach of the contract of sale, which could lead to financial or legal penalties. I understand that in some extreme cases the relevant clauses in the contract of sale go so far as to require that owners cannot sell their strata unit unless they ensure that the future buyer of the unit also gives the developer unconditional proxy voting rights. I am certain that members would agree that that is a highly questionable practice and inherently unfair to consumers. I certainly feel that way, and that is why this bill prohibits that practice.

While there is some doubt that such a contract term would be upheld by a court, most owners cannot afford the costs and risks involved in opening themselves up to potential legal action by a developer with very deep pockets. It is clear that the intent of these types of contractual conditions is to override the proxy voting provisions in the Act and to deprive strata unit owners of their right to participate in the decision-making process for their strata scheme. What is even more disturbing is that this contractual voting power has apparently been used to prevent rectification of defective building work or to ensure that contracts for the provision of certain services is assigned to firms with which the developer has a close connection or pecuniary interest, under what can be politely described as very favourable terms. The Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will prevent the highjacking of proxy votes in that manner. However, it is important to understand that the measure will not stop owners from voluntarily appointing anyone they wish to act as their proxy, including the developer, using the legitimate and flexible means provided for in the Act.

I turn now to measures in the bill that will enhance the transparency of strata scheme executive committees. Once an owners corporation of a strata building has been established, a smaller body called an executive committee is generally elected to handle the day-to-day running of the strata complex and to take responsibility for decision making on many administrative matters. The committee can include up to nine members and is elected at each annual general meeting. I am sure that I do not need to explain that an executive committee has both significant responsibilities and significant influence. Unfortunately, the Office of Fair Trading has received many complaints from strata unit owners about executive committees making decisions that are not in the best interests of all the residents in the scheme.

Strata unit owners have also expressed concerns that some executive committee members have strong connections or family ties with the developer or caretaker, a fact that was unknown when the election for the executive committee took place. To address the concerns of strata residents and the perceptions of biased decision making, and also to ensure greater transparency in the operation of executive committees, any persons standing for election to the executive committee will be required to disclose any connection they have with the developer or caretaker. This requirement will also apply to sitting members of an executive committee if they subsequently develop a connection with the developer or caretaker.

I emphasise that the existence of any connection with the developer or caretaker will not prevent a person from nominating for or being elected to an executive committee. But owners deserve to be as well informed as possible when voting to elect executive committee members or considering whether to remove a committee member from office. The last provision in the bill will amend the Home Building Act 1989 and concerns rectification of building defects. As part of its services to members of the public, the Office of Fair Trading provides a free and independent dispute resolution service to homeowners and builders.

The dispute resolution process commences when the Office of Fair Trading is notified of the matter by one of the parties involved in the dispute. An Office of Fair Trading inspector can attend the site and inspect the work to assess whether there are defects, incomplete work or damage for which the builder is responsible. Where possible, inspections are done in the presence of both parties and have proven very effective in assisting builders and homeowners to achieve solutions. If appropriate, the inspector may issue a rectification order to the builder. In regard to a building dispute that relates to common property, currently only an owners corporation or strata managing agent can invite an Office of Fair Trading inspector onto common property to assess the situation. An individual homeowner who has notified a dispute may only invite an inspector onto his or her lot.

Regrettably, Office of Fair Trading inspectors have encountered a number of situations where a developer has used his voting power or influence over an owners corporation to block a decision to lodge a building dispute with the Office of Fair Trading or to invite an inspector to enter common property to inspect building work. Those cases have involved significant and expensive matters, including faulty fire safety systems or widespread water penetration to a building. In some extreme cases, access to common property has been intentionally blocked, with caretakers being directed not to provide Office of Fair Trading inspectors with access to locked areas of the common property. This amendment will clarify the notification process so that there is no doubt that either an individual owner in a strata or community scheme or an owners corporation or association can notify a dispute in relation to common property or community association property, and can invite a Fair Trading inspector onto common property to assess the situation.

The amendment will require also caretakers and other persons who control access to areas of the common property to cooperate with officers from the Office of Fair Trading to enable the inspection to be carried out. In closing, I reiterate that all of the proposed amendments have been subject to thorough and extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and are strongly supported by those stakeholders. I commend these bills to the House.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [4.48 p.m.]: I speak against the proposed changes to planning reforms as provided in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 on behalf of all my fellow councillors across New South Wales. They see their roles as local representatives diminished. I speak against the bill on behalf of the council administration staff in all councils across New South Wales, as it will see their powers reduced. I speak against the bill on behalf of every resident across New South Wales who, I believe, will be subjected to more inappropriate development by way of large high-density development, apartment development and the continual rollout of the urban consolidation policy of this Labor State Government.

There is no doubt that reform to the plan-making process is long overdue. It is incredibly cumbersome and time consuming to undertake even the most minor amendments to local environmental plans. This has become an even bigger issue since the department revoked many of the delegations that were given to local councillors to streamline the process. Now that the whole of the State is moving towards more standardised local environmental plans, local councils are the appropriate authorities to manage the minor amendments that arise from time to time. A new system of delegation back to councils should be introduced, not removed. The State Government, and in particular the Minister for Planning, is critical of councils and their processing of applications. While these reforms are presented as part of natural evolution—part of a global trend—it is the planning reforms of 1998 that set the trend and created many of the problems we are now experiencing.

Prior to private certification the planning system rarely required development consent for dwellings, dwelling additions or outbuildings. Instead these kinds of developments were the subject of building applications, or "BAs" as we called them, assessed and determined under the Local Government Act. Assessment under this Act mirrored considerations for consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and, even taking into account the notification period to adjoining landowners, generally resulted in a certain and faster approval. Importantly, these decisions also involved consideration of merit, but because only councils could undertake that role with any impartiality, council, having regard to the relevant procedures, policies and development standards of the local authority, determined applications. We had an efficient, accountable planning and building regulation system. With the 1998 reforms, suddenly almost all development handled by building applications became local development requiring development consent, which has added weight to this system.

Private certification of merit considerations is not considered to be in the community interest and does not provide any confidence of impartiality—quite the opposite. These reforms do not satisfactorily address this issue and in fact canvass wider private sector involvement. The Minister should learn from the mistakes of the 1998 reforms and ensure these reforms do not add further complexity and duplication, as is the case at the moment. The Minister should take the opportunity to increase delegations to councils for minor local environmental planning amendments. Apart from the part 3A developments, councils' role as consent authority should be reinforced, enhanced and strengthened. Councils across New South Wales reject suggestions that expansion of the role of the private sector in the planning and development process or certification will bring any greater benefits. It will provide many worse outcomes for residents of New South Wales.

The biggest problem with the planning process in this State is not how long the decisions take; the biggest problem with development at the moment, particularly in areas of Sydney, is that millions of dollars are being paid to the Labor Party and we feel these donations are influencing both planning policy and individual planning outcomes. These reforms will speed up the approval times for large developers to get their developments through. They will downgrade the role of councils as a result of their power being diminished. They will remove the rights of communities to object to high-density and medium-density development, which is opposed vehemently in every suburb in Sydney and, I suggest, across New South Wales. Under the State Government's new planning proposals, termed the Metro Strategy, an additional 600,000 apartment-type dwellings will be built in suburbs right across Sydney. That will result in 1.5 million to two million more people in the next 10 to 15 years in suburbs across Sydney, which is completely and utterly unsustainable. The population cannot be sustained at the moment. Our roads are gridlocked, our public transport is overcrowded—now we are hearing the words "crush loads"—and our hospitals are at capacity and cannot cope. To introduce an additional 600,000 apartments as proposed under this Government's Metro Strategy is just absurd.

I turn now to the land use and plan-making aspects. Standardisation of environmental planning instruments does not fully consider the unique attributes of a local area or a community. The Department of Planning should allow the new template to provide greater flexibility to express individual communities' concerns. What may suit a community in one area of the State certainly will not suit a community in another area. Imagine putting housing provisions that suit an area such as Broken Hill into in an area such as Bondi. It is extraordinary that we should have a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to reduce the number of State planning policies and incorporate requirements into local instruments, or at least consolidate State environmental planning policies where possible to reduce the number of instruments that apply to an area. This is where a local council's input is being ignored and should be strengthened on behalf of its community. We do not want to see the New South Wales Government telling someone he or she should or should not have housing development, swimming pools or libraries. A local council and its community are the ones who should retain that power. Local councils are best placed to implement those procedures on behalf of their communities.

We consider the planning assessment commission and regional planning panels to be unnecessary. They will advise the Minister on planning, development matters and environmental planning instruments. They take the local community's ability to plan out of a council's hands and will place a financial burden of undefined proportions onto local councils and therefore onto ratepayers. They are the ones who will end up picking up the bill. They add another layer of complexity to the existing system. Their failure to comply with panels and the commission attracts penalties for councils and general managers. If this happens it will place a further burden on council ratepayers. The decisions of the Minister may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed, called into question, restrained or removed. The Minister retains the ultimate right to say yes or no and the council or the community cannot challenge him, making him quite a dictator. I will not mention the other word that I wrote next to "dictator" in my notes.

The commission and the panels are not required to hold meetings in public, which means they report only to the Minister and are employed by him. What hope does the community have of a say in how their community is to be developed? The fact that local councils determine $20 billion of local investment projects is testimony to the skills and capacity of local government to perform this role. The role of local governments should be reinforced and supported rather than the Government introducing further layers of duplicating consent authorities. The Minister and the department have ample tools already to address those councils whose performance in development assessment they feel is unsatisfactory. The creation of different consent authorities for different thresholds of development is questionable for the following reasons: it wrongly presumes that another authority would be any more competent. It also wrongly presumes that another authority would be any more efficient than those we have at present. It also wrongly presumes that sufficient skills are available to resource alternate consent authorities.

The compelling of councils to establish independent hearing and assessment panels to deal with certain developments is also not supported. Councils should be able to choose this model themselves. Independent hearing and assessment panels are not found to produce acceptable outcomes in all circumstances. These panels have been found to have their own inherent problems, including inconsistent advice, delays affected by the skills shortage and conflicts of interest. The inception of independent hearing and assessment panels would impose an additional financial burden on councils, which will have to pick up the cost and seek to reclaim some of the cost from the applicant, thereby increasing the cost of development.

Councils are accountable to the community for their processes through the legal system. Mandatory independent hearing and assessment panels are certainly not supported. I refer to exempt and complying development. In most instances the system has failed, including State environmental planning policy 60. Thresholds are easily breached due to environmental sensitivities, for example, bushfires, slopes, threatened species and heritage. Those kinds of environmental constraints knock out even the most minor developments such as clotheslines, television aerials, sheds, pools and the like, and they should be reviewed.

It is possible to achieve an increase in complying development in new greenfields release areas. However, infill projects, which often create the biggest issues, will prove to be the most difficult. It must also be remembered that many developers choose not to design to complying development standards. It would be simplistic to measure a council's performance on the extent of complying development in its area. It appears that local government areas in Sydney, which have comparatively high levels of complying development, will achieve those levels as they have a higher proportion of development. Madam Acting-Speaker, I seek an extension of time.

Leave not granted.

On behalf of all residents in New South Wales I express disappointment. I refer, next, to my council area of Baulkham Hills. Last Thursday the Growth Centres Commission announced the next stage of development in the north-west sector of Sydney. Another 4,700 homes will be built in north Kellyville, providing housing for up to 15,000 new residents. All residents expect good quality local roads, footpaths, libraries and, importantly, parks and playing fields. All local community facilities are currently paid for through section 94 contributions. Those facilities will be jeopardised if this funding is removed from the control of council. Given the track record of this State Government in providing basic infrastructure for which it is responsible—such as rail, buses, main roads and hospitals—I shudder to think how my local area will suffer if it is responsible for constructing our parks, playing fields, community buildings and libraries.

While the State Government proposes to withhold section 94 contributions, it will still insist on council remaining as the acquisition authority. Many councils will have to find hundreds of millions of dollars from other means to acquire land for parks, playing fields, council buildings, et cetera. If section 94 contributions are removed councils will still have to pay for acquisitions and infrastructure. Every member of a community and every member of a council area will have to pay more for their rates. Council will be viewed as the creator of these problems, yet we know that the reforms of this State Government are creating them. As I said earlier, these problems have been caused by the Minister for Planning.

I refer to what former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating said in 2006 at a local government conference. He referred to planning Minister Frank Sartor as the Mayor for Triguboff and called for donations from property developers to be outlawed. That statement specifically outlines what these reforms are doing. They will give more power to the Minister for Planning, speed up developments of large developers who fund the Labor Party's coffers, and result in a poor outcome for our communities. [Time expired.]

Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.04 p.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill 2008. There is no argument in New South Wales about the need for planning reform. There have been widespread calls for reform from families, planners, industry and infrastructure groups, as well as from councils. Over the past few weeks, debate on this issue has been most disappointing. As a member of the Rural and Regional Taskforce many council staff have talked to me about the need for a significant reform of the planning system. The Government's reforms respond to this imperative. Two new types of decision-making bodies have been created—the Planning Assessment Commission and joint regional planning panels—to depoliticise the planning process, ensure independent decision making, provide increased accountability and transparency, and, importantly, help to improve community confidence in the planning system.

Today Opposition members said that the Government should depoliticise the planning process by moving it to arm's length. The member for Hawkesbury said that it should not be removed from the political process at a local government level. There are some serious inconsistencies in the Opposition's position, and there were strong contradictions in the statements of the first two Opposition speakers. I refer first to the Planning Assessment Commission, which will comprise a chairman and up to eight part-time commissioners. Appointees will have to demonstrate relevant experience in planning-related areas. People with specialist expertise may be appointed on a casual basis. This will be important for projects with potential impacts requiring assessments by experts in a relevant field.

Appropriate accountability measures have been included in the bill with respect to members of the commission, including requirements for disclosure of pecuniary interests and members being subject to oversight by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Ombudsman. The commission will have a range of functions. Importantly, the bill provides that the Minister for Planning may delegate to the commission his decision-making role for part 3A projects which to date have not been permitted under the Planning Act. This will not apply to critical infrastructure projects, given their significance in delivering essential infrastructure.

I understand that around 80 per cent of projects are likely to be determined by the commission under delegation. That will mean that the time of the Minister for Planning can be more appropriately spent on important strategic planning matters of significance to the State. The bill will enable the establishment of joint regional planning panels—another important anti-corruption measure. Regional panels will be based on the Central Sydney Planning Committee model, which has operated successfully in the City of Sydney for a number of years. Regional panels will comprise three State members, with expertise in relevant planning areas, and two council nominees.

The assessment of development applications will continue to be done by council staff, who will prepare assessment reports on development applications, including recommendations that will then be considered by the regional panel. Councils will continue to receive fees for development applications, as they do now. I note that Victoria recently announced the establishment of 26 regional panels. Clearly, the planning reforms being undertaken in New South Wales are leading the way. The appointment of State members will follow a public process for the calling of applications and expressions of interest. Councils will be able to decide how they will appoint their nominees.

Regional planning panels will be responsible for determining regionally significant development, following assessment of the proposal by the relevant council. It is appropriate that regional panels determine such proposals, given the significance of these developments to regional areas. As with the Central Sydney Planning Committee, I expect panels to demonstrate how State and local government can work cooperatively to deliver effective planning outcomes. They will also ensure that elected councillors are able to use their time more effectively in dealing with strategic planning for their local areas. Last year, as I travelled around with the rural task force, I received a lot of feedback about the need for both State and local government to improve their planning performance.

One of the key issues that might have been missed in debate is that this planning proposal makes significant changes to the way in which State agencies deal with requests from councils to deliver advice or approvals on particular applications, as required under a number of planning instruments and legislation. The system is being cleaned up to remove more than 1,000 redundant or duplicated requirements so that we can help speed up the planning system overall. We are also trimming the time taken to deliver advice and concurrences from 40 to 21 days and introducing a new deemed approval period of 21 days so that councils can get on with the job. Most councils in New South Wales will strongly welcome that provision.

Some of the more positive things have been buried under the negative publicity generated by some councils that are members of the Local Government Association. It is a bit like throwing out the baby with bath water, which is disappointing.

Mr Andrew Stoner: Throwing you out.

Mr STEVE WHAN: The intelligent interjection from the member opposite about throwing people out is up to his usual standard. He must be disappointed that his similar remarks last session were not acted on. The member for Hawkesbury spent the first six minutes of his contribution to the debate talking about the metro strategy. He has failed to read the bill. He spoke about density of developments and things that are not part of this bill. A multistorey apartment complex is not likely to be the subject of complying development. He and a number of other members spoke about this being a one-size-fits-all bill. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the model. It is disappointing to hear that false statement continuing to be bandied about in rural areas.

As the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Planning I responded to the comments the member for Ballina made on a local radio station suggesting that these reforms are terrible because they would allow the Government to compulsorily acquire land and sell it to developers. The discussion documents originally contained that proposal but it was omitted from the final bill. It is a pity members opposite talk about proposed legislation without reading what has been introduced. A number of councils in the area I represent are positive about these reforms. Cooma council refused a request from the Local Government and Shires Associations to fund its campaign because it believes the reforms are positive. The Mayor of Queanbeyan also welcomed the reforms. I have urged councils in my electorate to look carefully at the reforms. Early in the piece I took on board issues raised by Palerang Council. Changes for section 94 contributions were modified because issues were raised regarding the original proposal.

Unfortunately, it seems those modifications have not been acknowledged by some areas. The Minister made an effort to talk directly to the mayors in many areas. He visited Gundagai to explain the intent of the reforms while the discussion paper was being exhibited and a series of road shows were undertaken to other country locations. One issue that must be debunked is this one-size-fits-all claim that has been floating around the State. The bill is not a one-size-fits-all legislative reform; it is an attempt to improve the performance of procedures for complying developments. Victoria has achieved improvement in 50 per cent of developments, compared with 11 per cent in New South Wales. Councils told the rural task force that staff were tied up with small development applications and did not have time to focus on longer-term strategic issues, such as local environmental plans. An example of that is one shire in the south-east region with 12,000 residents having 193 development applications awaiting approval—with delays involving 591 days, 368 days and 297 days.

If development applications have problems the council must be able to focus on resolving them and not be bogged down by other smaller issues. These proposed reforms and the accompanying codes were developed cautiously by a group of practitioners, including a majority of local government representatives. They deal with single-storey dwellings, internal alterations for two-storey dwellings, internal fit-outs and changes of use for some commercial dwellings. Four regional councils have been trialling the codes. The Minister spoke at length about those trials in his agreement in principle speech.

Country councils have little to fear because already they are among the better performers of complying development processes. Some have already achieved the 50 per cent target: Cobar, Warrumbungle, Coolamon, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Junee, Murrumbidgee, Conargo, Coonamble and Narrabri, to mention a few. Another misrepresented aspect of these reforms is the section 94 levy. I was disappointed this morning at the shires association conference to hear the continued claim that these reforms will cost shires money. I have yet to come across a country or regional council that will lose money through the changes to section 94; the section 94 charges councils have put in place are nowhere near the limit provided in this bill.

These reforms simply make the system more transparent, accountable and workable. The section 94 contributions levy provisions were modified after I raised issues regarding the purposes of the levy. Guarantees are in place to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered within a reasonable time, that those contributions are affordable and are a reasonable apportionment of new and existing demand—not unreasonable requests. Reasonable estimates of infrastructure costs must be used and the estimates demand must be reasonable. I do not believe this will negatively affect any council I represent. In fact, one council has only just started charging section 94 contributions.

The Government has included provision for councils that want to levy beyond the list of key community infrastructure—that is, land works and buildings—including drainage and water management works, local roads, bus stops, local parks, sporting, recreational, cultural and social facilities, and district facilities that have a direct connection with the development that is being levied. Councils that demonstrate a sound case for levies relating to matters included on that list will receive approval to levy for such infrastructure. As I said earlier, I was disappointed to hear the president at the shires association conference say that the Government will be taking money from some councils. The only areas affected by the State Government holding some of the money in trust will be the major growth areas, none of which are in areas the shires association represents in country and regional New South Wales.

This legislation has much to offer country New South Wales, particularly those councils that told me, the member for Northern Tablelands and Col Gellatly, the rural task force, "We are overworked in planning. We cannot get enough planners. We need you to do something to reduce the workload of day-to-day planning work so that we can focus on the strategic longer-term issues." Those councils should welcome this bill. There has been significant misrepresentation of what these planning reforms will achieve, which is a pity. A number of councils support the Government's reforms. Indeed, after the official shires' position had been stated at a meeting I attended at one country venue with Country Labor, council officers said to me, "Steve, we actually agree with what you are trying to do."

The extensive dialogue and consultation regarding these reforms have resulted in significant changes from what was in the original discussion documents. I commend the Minister for presenting the discussion documents and an exposure draft of this bill for comment. That sort of consultation is necessary for such an important issue. I hope the positive parts of this legislation will not be thrown out like the baby with the bathwater simply because the Opposition feels it needs to respond by grabbing headlines or trying to be populist rather than constructive. The Opposition spokesman's contribution contained some elements of constructiveness but it is disappointing that the Opposition intends to oppose the legislation in this House. In the long term the people of New South Wales will see the Opposition as disappointing—a party that does not respond to the need for genuine planning reform. Regional New South Wales needs a reasonably fast process that protects people's rights. That is what this legislation is all about. I commend the bills to the House.

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.18 p.m.]: No doubt New South Wales desperately needs reform of planning legislation and, indeed, the broader planning system. Part of the need stems from the Government's mismanagement of the process, including the centralisation of many development decisions to the department and the Minister for Planning. Layer upon layer of regulations and legislative provisions affecting planning, and myriad changes within the planning department regarding procedures, structures and staffing, have contributed to the present planning mess. A major driver of the New South Wales economy, the property industry, rightly wants reform of planning in New South Wales and considers that the current regime for property development is confusing as well as prone to delay. I do not think there would be any disagreement with that. A person involved in the property industry on the mid North Coast contacted me by email and stated:

If you want to send some constructive criticism to Sartor advise him to delegate some authority back to local government & then Regional DoP offices. At the moment DoP Grafton are nothing more than a mail box!

He needs to understand that his policy of Centralised control simply means that nothing happens because it all gets log jammed at the Ministers Office

If we don't fix the mess that is Planning legislation the whole development industry in NSW will collapse & any remnants of business confidence that remain will disappear.

Individual property owners also have contacted me out of frustration with red tape in obtaining approval for minor development applications through council on matters ranging from fences to extensions and dwellings. There is legitimate demand for planning reform, but the issue before the Parliament is whether Frank's reforms are the right reforms, or will result in the continuation of a climate that is conducive to corruption.

Frank has a particular style. One has to admire that he wants to achieve change, but he has a particular style that has led the Coalition to refer to him as "Steamroller" Sartor. He likes to ram things through and achieve the change he wants. We can see that in the way that the environmental and planning bill has been brought together and the extent of consultation in relation to the changes it will create. Past changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 were the subject of extensive consultation. The current package of legislation, as complex as it is, has been promulgated in the community for really only eight months, including a Christmas holiday period. While some people consider that there has been an opportunity for consultation, it has not been long enough to refine the package that is before the Parliament.

People want reform because of the changes affecting part 3A that were introduced following previous reforms in 2005. The recent changes gave the Minister for Planning increased power to pull in and determine State significant developments. Subsequently donations to the Labor Party increased substantially. A couple of months ago the ABC's Four Corners program reported that a culture which was created in the business community became manifested in a belief, whether real or otherwise, that unless donations were made, principally through attendance at Labor Party fundraising dinners, part 3A would not be available. In other words, businesses that supported the Labor Party could have their development application called in and dealt with by the Minister. That certainly was the perception. We all want change that will deal with a climate that is conducive to corruption.

In early 2007 Minister Sartor announced a review. A discussion paper was followed by a draft bill. The current bill then was introduced. All of that occurred over less than eight months. I understand that, after some hesitation, stakeholders, including planners, architects and others in the property industry, support the bill, albeit with some qualifications in each case. However, other stakeholders, including local government, environment groups and the public, have serious concerns about the reforms proposed by the Government. The Four Corners program covered, among other things, the Wollongong corruption debacle that led to widespread concern or belief that the Government is interested only in planning and change for the sake of receiving donations.

The Opposition has a number of concerns about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. In relation to development applications worth up to $1 million, arbitrators will determine a new range of complying developments. Appeal rights to the Land and Environment Court will apply to applicants only. Therefore there will be no appeal by objectors or a council. Essentially, neighbours will not be given prospective notification of development that could be taking place next door to their property. If a developer or neighbour wants to undertake development on land adjacent to a neighbour the developer could obtain approval before the neighbour even became aware that anything was about to take place. That is the equivalent of someone being flattened by a steamroller and receiving notice after it has happened. That is hardly helpful.

I cite a letter I received from the very good Mayor of Kempsey, Betty Green, who has expressed the concerns of local government authorities and asked the Coalition either to vote against the proposed planning system reform proposals or to request amendments and/or additional information prior to voting on the bill. Her letter, setting out reasons, states:

We all agree that there needs to be improvements to the processing of Planning Development Applications across NSW. As the recently published Monitoring Reports on Local Government Processing of Development Applications demonstrates some Councils are performing well, some not so well and others very poorly. The current legislation targets all Councils, not just the underperforming ones, and has a tendency "to throw the baby out with the bath water".

Kempsey Council, like many other Councils across the State, has concerns about some aspects of legislation. These have the potential to reduce or negate our community's ability to have a say in development proposals which will impact on their lives, enjoyment of their locality and possible destruction of the lifestyle which they enjoy.

Having read the current legislation being debated, there are currently three (3) specific areas of concern relevant to our Shire—

which, of course, is the beautiful Kempsey Shire—

1. The proposed Complying Development templates

2. Increasing Private Certifiers

3. Reduction and/or removal of S94 Contributions by Developers and restrictions on local projects being funded by S94.

At the present time it is very difficult to see the long term implications of the legislation before parliament as the wording is very open ended and ambiguous. The Government argument is that the changes will make housing more affordable for families and speed up the time involved.

This is not necessarily the case as many of the proposals will in actual fact increase processing times, incur additional delays and associated costs.

Our specific concerns:-

1. The proposed Complying Development templates have not been published yet and possibly have not been developed. However, the concern is the ability of the Council planning staff to have input into the development of these.

The system of implementation, if these twelve templates will apply across the State and the Council planning staff are able to choose which template best suits a particular application, could possibly be effective and increase the percentage of Development Applications processed as Complying Development. However, if the respective templates are to be applied to a particular geographic area, (one size fits all in that locality) this will be detrimental to the community.

2. Private Certifiers. While we do not, to date, have many private certifications, we are finding that those private certifies external to our Shire continue to present Council planning staff with significant difficulties which results in additional work being required at Council (ratepayers) expense. If this is to be increased and this will exacerbate the difficulties currently being experienced. The respective Regulatory Board does not appear to have the power nor the desire to monitor and control the certifiers.

3. S94 Developer's Contributions. The truth is that current S94 contributions in non metropolitan areas are less than those that apply in the metropolitan regions. These are maintained at as low a level as possible to provide community infrastructure which the Shire needs to maintain our community's lifestyle. This includes the provision of roads, playgrounds, environmental projects, arts and cultural developments etc.

While much of the Legislation is stated to apply to NSW's major growth areas only, it would be foolish not to realise that if one area within the State has specific exemptions then other areas and participants (developers) will claim the same privileges under the guise of discrimination and procedural fairness.

Thank you for taking the time to read this information and we trust that you will support us in our endeavours to ensure that all of NSW residents are able to maintain a reasonable lifestyle.

That is a pretty good summary of the concerns of local government generally, as expressed in a letter from Betty Green, the Mayor of Kempsey. She is backed up by North Coast Environment Council spokesperson John Jeayes, who has also written to me. Amongst other things, he said:

it was clear from a raft of government legislation including Planning Reforms that environmental protection will be removed with local government powers to protect residents and the environment from developer greed.

He continued:

It seems that the Minister is attempting to deflect criticism over approval of large projects (often involving proponents making large political donations) by transferring a lot of the approval responsibility for these projects to Planning Assessment Commissions, IHAPS or Joint Regional Planning Panels.

It also seems these panels may have approval powers in other areas such as where local government LEPs and also REPs will be replaced. It is likely that the panels selected and controlled by the minister will achieve the same result that is frequently abhorred by the community. And you do not have to be real smart to figure out who will comprise the majority of the panel.

They are some of that environmental group's concerns. In addition, the Opposition is concerned about the substantial increase in complying development categories. The devil is in the detail, which will be produced via regulations, codes and guidelines. The detail is not known at this stage. The Minister is basically saying, "Trust me." The expanded role of certifiers in the approval of complying development arguably increases their regulatory role at a time when there are many concerns about certifiers. In 2002 the Minister for Planning when Lord Mayor of Sydney—the current Lord Mayor is in the Chamber—complained about the building quality of high-rise apartment blocks, and particularly the issuing of fire safety certificates by private certifiers who did not abide by the code. In view of his concerns then, I do not know why Minister Sartor is now pushing for a greater role for private certifiers.

There is also lack of clarity about the types of development that will go to regional panels, about the assessment procedures to be adopted by the Planning Assessment Commission and about how notification of reviewable development applications will occur for "occupiers" within one kilometre of the development. So much in this bill may add to the complexity of planning laws, and so much more that is not in the bill will be left to regulations, codes and guidelines. Together, these provisions may slow planning and increase costs. There is also community concern that the Labor Party is focused on fast tracking development for donation-friendly developers. So we return to the question: Is Minister Sartor's reform the right reform? The Opposition says no. This legislation is rushed and ill considered. There are too many warts on it. We want to achieve proper planning reform, which we will seek via the parliamentary committee process.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [5.33 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. A key element of the planning reforms that I will address is the creation of a series of statewide complying development codes. By way of background, it is important to remember that these are significant changes. The current determination times for proposals under $500,000, which would include most houses, is 69 days. Some 94 per cent of applications in the planning system are worth under $500,000. Even small alterations and additions to existing homes that are worth less than $100,000 amount to 68 per cent of all applications across the State. That is the background to the proposed development codes.

However, there is a simpler way to gain planning approvals for the large number of relatively small-scale proposals. This is through a system of complying development, which has been in use since 1997. The idea is that a code defines an envelope for a typical house on an average-size lot. The envelope will be determined by setbacks and height controls to protect neighbours' amenity and preserve the streetscape. If a proposal fits into the envelope, the approval should take less than 10 days—a reduction from the current 69 days for this type of development. Some councils, such as Port Macquarie-Hastings, have embraced the concept. Port Macquarie-Hastings Council deals with about 60 per cent of developments using this effective process, freeing up council staff and reducing costs to applicants. However, last year on average only 11 per cent of developments across New South Wales were dealt with in this way.

The complying development approach has been endorsed at a national level and is accepted practice in other States. We must make it work better in New South Wales. The Department of Planning has prepared a series of draft codes that are currently on public exhibition. These draft codes relate to single-storey dwelling houses on lots of land of 600 square metres and over, internal alterations for two-storey dwelling houses, and internal fit-outs and change of use for certain commercial and industrial properties. A State environmental planning policy [SEPP] will give effect to the codes. The SEPP will contain general limitations on what may be included as exempt and complying development. It will include exempt and complying development in certain environmentally sensitive areas or permit only certain types of exempt or complying development in those areas. For example, in many situations internal office fit-outs could be considered complying development in a heritage building, and a swimming pool could be complying development in a bushfire zone.

In response to community submissions, the proposal allowing minor non-compliance with complying development codes has been removed from the reform package. If a proposal cannot strictly meet the requirements of the codes it must be subject to a full merit assessment. A complying development expert panel has overseen the preparation of the draft codes. There are several heritage buildings in the electorate of Maitland of which we are extremely proud. Reports have appeared in the media—and representations have been made to my office—that the bill may endanger heritage buildings and put them at risk of demolition. I reassure my constituents and others who treasure those heritage buildings that the bill does not affect their protection. There is no reduction in their protection because the bill's reforms do not affect heritage buildings in any way. Buildings that are heritage listed have their own protection and legislation. I make that point clear in response to representations on the subject.

I should also clear up some of the myths that have been circulating about the bill. One of them is that all development less than $1 million will be exempt from complying development. The Minister's policy statement reveals clearly that that is not so. Another myth doing the rounds is that the bill will create a one-size-fits-all system. That is also incorrect. There will be a variety of codes for different house types—single-storey, two-storey, duplex and terrace houses—and varying lot sizes. Different codes will stipulate different types of construction. Particular code provisions are being developed for different classes of development and they will be able to be augmented in certain circumstances to take into consideration location differences. As an interim step, heritage conservation areas have been excluded from the complying development codes so that further work can be done to ensure that, as I said earlier, developments will not impact on the heritage significance of those sites.

The first suite of draft codes is on exhibition until 4 July 2008. Between now and then a series of professional and community workshops will be held across the State to explain the codes and to seek feedback. Workshops will be held at Parramatta, Blacktown, Wollongong, Queanbeyan, Coffs Harbour, Newcastle, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga. During that time it is understood that 11 councils have agreed to review the codes against their current development applications to see whether the matters could be dealt with as exempt or complying development under the codes. The New South Wales Government has set a target that 30 per cent of development will be dealt with as complying development in two years, and 50 per cent in four years. This will bring New South Wales in line with other States that have already achieved that target.

I note that Cobar, Warrumbungle, Coolamon, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Conargo, Junee, Murrumbidgee, Coonamble and Narrabri are already achieving the target of 50 per cent. A similar result achieved across New South Wales would significantly reduce the regulatory burden on small business and homeowners, and free up planners so that they can give more of their time to assessing development that really matters.

For the benefit of my constituents I will clarify some further matters relating to certain campaigning that has been going on. We are all aware of the Keep it Local campaign in response to the Minister taking away power from councils. However, the campaign is conveniently neglecting to report the facts—that is, the new Planning and Assessment Commission has been established to undertake an independent determination role, and will deal with approximately 80 per cent of applications currently dealt with by the Minister. That cannot be said in any way to give the Minister more powers; it is actually a delegation of those powers. The new Joint Regional Planning Panels will have State Government and council appointed nominees and will deal with certain coastal applications currently dealt with by the Minister—again a delegation of the current role and a giving back of the power to councils.

The new plan-making part of the reform will, for the first time, allow the Minister to delegate back to councils the approval role for making small-scale local environmental plans, which is very different from the current arrangements. Independent arbitrators will provide a quick, cheap and non-legalistic option for mums and dads to have a decision reviewed. There will also be new third party appeals on certain types of development where the rules have been broken—something that would have helped in the Wollongong council corruption scandal—which was recommended by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is about making the system more accountable and efficient. In my electorate of Maitland, which has a growth rate of 2 per cent, the vast majority of development is residential housing. Currently people have to wait six to eight weeks for a planning response. If an application fits neatly in the envelope of compliant development, a reduction to 10 days will be a welcome change to the community in view of the area's fast growth rate. For those reasons in particular I have great pleasure in commending the bill and cognate bills to the House.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [5.42 p.m.]: I take issue with the member for Maitland on heritage items. I point out that schedule 1.4 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill will amend the Heritage Act to remove the role of the Heritage Council in reviewing proposed environmental planning instruments that effectively lessen the heritage protection offered to heritage items. Furthermore, unelected planning arbitrators will have the opportunity to make merit decisions on items of local heritage, which will include making orders for the demolition of heritage items. Rather than securing heritage items, the bill will put them at risk. I have been asked by the shadow Minister for Planning, the member for Wakehurst, who, in his dotage, forgot to mention the work of his assistant Lee Dixon in listening to the community and preparing for debate on this bill. He asked me to thank Lee on behalf of Opposition members for her diligence and commitment. She is the only resource we have and we are grateful to her.

The bill has a long background, beginning with the lengthy review process begun by Sir John Fuller in the early 1970s, and exacerbated by a change of government, and culminating with the implementation of a comprehensive land use planning system following the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As pointed out in the second reading speech to that bill, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as first enacted, had three distinct objects: to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and man-made resources; to share government responsibility for environmental planning between the State and local government; and to increase the opportunity for community involvement in environmental planning.

While it is difficult to properly address the entirety of 150 pages of legislation and countless pages of supporting documentation in 20 minutes, I will try to explain how each of the original and continuing objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are undermined and attacked in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. The first object of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment was explained in the second reading speech to the original Act as "the essence of environmental planning", and was to be achieved through the "orderly and economic use and development of land", which had been the standing object of the State Planning Authority since it was established in 1963. Yet, the current bill undermines the proper management of the natural and built environment, and does not provide for the orderly and economic use and development of land.

Proper management and orderly development depends on clear, transparent and consistent processes. In fact, planning itself is a process. Yet, the bill completes the effective gutting of good planning process that was commenced by the Labor Government with the disastrous planning reforms of 1998. Before Labor came to power, the planning system was reasonably straightforward, and provided for four clear categories of development: advertised development, designated development, Crown development and prohibited development. Yet, in a somewhat ironic effort to reduce red tape, Labor has since added the categories of exempt development, complying development, local development, integrated development, staged development, major projects and critical infrastructure.

Through the passage of the bill, Labor proposes to introduce the following new layers of bureaucracy into the planning system a Planning Assessment Commission, joint regional planning panels, independent hearing assessment panels, a planning assessment panel review panel, joint regional planning panel review panel and planning arbitrator review panel. Those panels will add to the following levels of bureaucracy in the planning and heritage system introduced by Labor over the past decade: planning assessment panels, design advisory panels, ministerial review panels and building professionals board. Ten years, and 10 new layers of bureaucracy—it is time the planning system went to a panel beater. Each of the new layers of planning bureaucracy merely duplicate existing processes of the Land and Environment Court, commissions of inquiry or local government.

Whereas standing bodies have independence to set up processes and to appoint staff on merit, the panels will be entirely dependent on the Minister for Planning for their procedures, functions and resources. Whereas a judge or a commissioner can make decisions without fear of retribution from government there is nothing to prevent a Minister for Planning from quietly dropping a recalcitrant panellist from the favoured list of approved panel appointees if he or she makes a decision that is not consistent with the Government's wishes. In this light, I raise a couple of specific concerns about schedule 2, division 6, to the bill. First, in relation to indemnities for planning arbitrators, clause 23P provides that council must indemnify a planning arbitrator appointed to determine a matter against a liability for costs incurred by the planning arbitrator with respect to an appeal.

Why should local ratepayers be liable for legal costs incurred by an inept or dodgy planning administrator who was ultimately selected by the Minister? Furthermore, in clause 23N I note that obligations will be placed on councils to assist panels that are appointed over the top of them. In particular, the general manager or staff member of a council may be liable to penalties exceeding $1,000—criminal sanction, penalty notices—for failing to comply with directions from panels. Surely council staff should be answerable solely to the general manager who, in turn, should be solely answerable to the local community, through local government councillors. An extra layer of people to whom council officers are accountable undermines democracy and is certainly not clear or good process.

Decisions about planning and development can have real impacts on local communities and economic growth. We need a clear and simple system of decision making on planning proposals. More layers of bureaucracy will make the planning system more bloated, confusing and unresponsive than it already is. The second object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government and the State. The significance of democratic participation in planning has been acknowledged since the genesis of land use planning in New South Wales. At the first meeting of the Cumberland County Council in November 1945, local government Minister Joe Cahill said:

It is the Government's intention that town and country planning shall be democratic and that, under skilled guidance, the people themselves shall join in the planning to the greatest extent possible. We will not have planning imposed from above.

As the Minister said in his second reading speech to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act:

the department should be primarily concerned with initiating and developing policies and plans for matters of State or regional significance.

Sharing of governmental planning powers in this context requires that the State Government must be relieved of involvement in local planning in order to discharge this heavy responsibility. Emphasising a commitment to devolution of planning powers has continued to be an important feature of planning. In 1988 Premier Greiner stated:

Local planning is a function of local government and there is no place for the State Government to override or second-guess the decisions of the community. It is a leading plank of our policy that local residents and their councils should be able to determine the nature of developments in their areas.

Yet, ever since Labor came to power in 1995 it has sought to centralise power in environmental land use planning. First, prescriptive State environmental planning policies, such as policy 5 and policy 53, imposed development standards on local communities. Next, part 3A removed major projects with huge impacts on local communities from the purview of the democratically elected representatives of the community most directly affected. Now Labor seeks to remove from local government the major decision-making role on plan making and development assessment. The bill effectively completes the centralisation of planning power into the hands of the Minister for Planning.

The Minister or his delegates can make local environmental plans and State environmental planning policies, including substantive changes to drafts prepared by local government. Complying development codes are entirely determined by the Minister with no reference to Parliament and no rights of participation in preparing the codes for local government, even though they will be primarily responsible for enforcing them. Minimising the planning responsibilities of local representatives is likely to exacerbate conflict, and therefore cost and delay, in planning. Planning lawyer Ian Ratcliff recently observed:

the lack of procedural or legal remedies means that objectors are increasingly likely to use the political arena to fight development proposals.

The costly and divisive political stoushes over development proposals at Currawong and Catherine Hill Bay are relevant examples. Furthermore, the gradual erosion of local government planning powers, coupled with the concomitant increase in ministerial power, means that developers can exert pressure on councils to accede to their demands rather than negotiate towards an outcome with which the local community agrees. As planning lawyer John Mant said:

the pressures on councils to waive the controls is likely to become even more intense "Give in or I'll go to the Minister".

Over the past decade, the Government has said that its approach to planning is all about moving from a "process-driven approach to an outcomes-focused service". However, that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Planning is a process; it is the process that produces good outcomes, not the other way round. United States of America's former President Dwight Eisenhower commented, "Plans are nothing, planning is everything." We need an efficient planning process, not efficiencies at the expense of good process. Undermining good process reduces transparency in decision making on development that can have a huge and lasting impact on the environment and on peoples' lives.

The third object of the Act, as originally formulated, provided for increased opportunities for community involvement in environmental planning and assessment. The need for public participation as a fundamental part of achieving good planning outcomes is internationally recognised. Chapter 23 of Agenda 21 asserts that individuals need to know about and participate in environmental and development decisions, particularly those that affect their communities. That has long been recognised by government. In 1972 the New South Wales Government released a discussion paper recognising the lack of general rights to public participation as a failure in the existing planning law, as well as the huge number of bodies involved in the planning process.

Subsequently, the Government sought public input into how the planning system might be improved and released a series of proposals that resulted in the drafting of the Environmental Planning Bill 1976. That bill proposed expanded rights of participation but the incoming Labor Government took the further step of proposing that public participation be a fundamental objective of the new Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill 1979. Minister Landa stated in his second reading speech on that bill that the intention of the legislation was to overcome the deficiencies of earlier local government and town planning laws by "conferring equal opportunity on all members of the community to participate in decision making under the new legislation". Another Government member asserted:

the opportunity for people to be involved in the planning process is most significant

plans should not be made for people, but should be made by people, that is, reflecting their desires, needs and aspirations.

But this bill effectively removes legislative rights to meaningful participation in environmental planning. For example, there are no legislative rights to a guaranteed process of public participation in plan making, and there are no legislative rights to be informed of development applications for most classes of development. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Although the Minister for Planning said that he will introduce a non-legislative right for immediate neighbours to go to a bureaucrat for a review of certain development applications that exceed development standards by 25 per cent, that is no real right at all. It is simply ridiculous to not empower the community to enforce a planning law until it is breached by more than 25 per cent. It is like saying that the speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour, but a driver will not be charged for speeding unless he drives at more than 120 kilometres per hour. Basically, it is giving a green light to dodgy developers to exceed development standards by up to 25 per cent without consequence. The Minister's power to determine the timing, nature and type of participation emulates the process that English planning lawyer Bedford criticised, whereby the Minister may pre-determine acceptable alternative outcomes and then have citizens comment on the alternatives. Therefore, as Bedford said:

the crucial decisions have already been made and citizen involvement becomes a formality leading to small changes that do not challenge basic assumptions

Bedford and his colleagues concluded:

[that since participation] generated no meaningful changes to the developers' proposal, it achieved nothing and "the game" need not have existed

This is a dangerous way to proceed because expectations are raised but meaningful outcomes are not delivered. Such a process readily generates cynicism and ultimately leads people to question what public participation is about in the first place.

According to Richard Buxton in the Journal of Planning and Environmental Law in 2002 a situation in which the public is encouraged to participate through processes that have no result in mitigating the impacts of unpopular development can be:

too much for people to bear without protest. A spirit within is stirred to do something. The common denominator is a profound sense of injustice.

Consequently, trust in administrators, experts and decision makers has "dissipated", according to Graham Marshall in a paper presented to the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. In a 1973 paper, "The Planner as a Bureaucrat", Norman Beckman noted that the deafness of officials to public voices on conflicts over land use planning means that public perceptions of decision makers are "often heavily tinged with venality and hypocrisy, if not outright dishonesty". British planning lawyer Patrick McAuslan noted that although the demands for greater public participation in planning have resulted in an "increased expectation of statutory rights by participators the failure to adapt the law to meet these increased expectations adds fuel to the flames of disillusionment and frustration with the planning system". Lord Justice Harman famously noted in Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council that "planning stinks in the nostrils of the public". Clearly, the same situation prevails in New South Wales and, frankly, the bill does little to remove the stench.

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO (Penrith) [5.58 p.m.]: I have a 14-year-old son whose favourite television show is Myth Busters. I am not wearing a pair of overalls nor do I have an orange moustache, but I will try to allay some of the myths that have circulated about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. I am pleased to support the bill. We know that the planning system must be reformed. We know that because the community, practitioners, industry groups and local government have told us so. This reform package is the result of extensive consultation. Over the past year the Government has held forums, studied national trends, published a discussion paper and an exposure bill, scrutinised feedback and made changes. Despite that, the contents of the reform package has been the subject of much misinformation, and a few myths still persist.

I turn now to the levies myths. Libraries, childcare centres and parks are not under threat from these changes. Councils can continue to fund them from community infrastructure contributions—to say that they cannot is misleading and dishonest. These reforms will not deprive communities of infrastructure. These reforms will ensure that infrastructure paid for by communities is delivered to them. Communities do not benefit from things that are not built, so we will require councils to set out the time frame for delivery up front.

This does not have to be in years; it can be in milestones. However, it will mean that communities will know what they are getting and when they should be getting it. We are also introducing some checks and balances to stop these contributions becoming an uncapped, backdoor tax on the family home. The current system is unaccountable and we are working to fix it. We are moving to ensure that both councils and the State Government consider issues such as housing affordability when developing contribution plans. Another myth that is doing the rounds is that contributions will somehow end up in State Government coffers. This is blatantly incorrect. The New South Wales Government will hold in trust contributions in just six council areas in the south-west and north-west growth centres because we are coordinating the provision of all infrastructure consistent with the release of development areas involving $2 billion in State taxpayer funds.

I refer now to the pro-developer myth. The idea that these reforms are pro-developer is an absolute furphy. This legislation allows more neighbourhood challenges to development decisions, hands significant proposals to independent panels to depoliticise the system, reduces developer controls of strata committees in new buildings and creates much stronger limits on private certifiers. I am struggling to see how this could be considered pro-developer. This brings me to another myth—that private certifiers will get more power under this bill. They will not. This legislation strengthens the accountability of the certification system and provides greater consistency in the regulation of building and complying development in New South Wales. Under these changes councils will be given greater powers to enforce development consents, with new investigation powers and mechanisms to recover costs of enforcement action. Consent authorities will be able to issue stop-work orders to immediately stop unauthorised work or work that affects the support of adjoining land.

A consent authority will be able to require payment of an enforcement bond as a condition of consent. I note the Minister's assurance that there will be limits on the types of things the consent authority will be able to fund from the bond. However, this is an important reform to assist councils in funding necessary enforcement action where developers breach conditions of consent. The bill will also enable councils to recover the full costs of assessing unauthorised works when they are asked to issue a building certificate for recently completed unauthorised work. This will be a deterrent to people who carry out building works without consent and then ask council to endorse the development once it is finished.

The Government is also toughening penalties for accredited certifiers and building professionals. Where the board makes a finding of professional misconduct it will be able to impose fines of up to $110,000—up tenfold from $11,000—and cancel or suspend accreditation without having to go to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Certifiers and building professionals will still be able to appeal to the tribunal but the board will be able to take quick and decisive action where a disciplinary finding is made. The board will also be able to suspend an accreditation holder where they have persistently breached the legislation while an investigation into their conduct is carried out.

This brings me to the one-size-fits-all myth. These reforms to the certification system will help ensure the introduction of statewide codes for small development will be a success. These codes will help unclog the system by ensuring that small developments that comply with preset rules are dealt with in around 10 days. These codes have been the subject of some of the most persistent myths of all—that they will be one-size-fits-all and cause neighbourhoods to lose their character. Again, this is simply untrue. There will not be one code for the whole State but a series of codes dealing with different types of development. These codes will maintain and enhance local character and protect privacy while giving ordinary mums and dads quick decisions. The Government is also inviting comment on local variations and is working with several councils across the State to trial the codes. The first set of codes to be released for public comment covers single-storey houses on land of 600 square metres or more. Data held by the Department of Planning show that proposals for detached single-storey homes comprise more than 65 per cent of all residential development applications in New South Wales. I commend the principal bill and cognate bills to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [6.04 p.m.]: The Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, the Building Professionals Amendment Bill 2008 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 have the common theme of the rights of people and communities versus developers' powers. There are also critical issues of environment, heritage and the climate of corruption. I support the Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill, which is long overdue. It improves the rights of strata development owners and should have been part of the Government's urban consolidation policies. The Sydney electorate is the most densely populated electorate in New South Wales and, in fact, in Australia. The population has increased dramatically over the last 10 years and growth is continuing. The vast majority of new residential developments in this area are multi-unit. Constituents routinely contact me about strata management issues and I have long called for many of the measures set out in this bill, which reduce developers' control of apartments after residents move in. While past reform has resulted in some improvements, apartment owners remain concerned that developers continue to dominate building management, particularly for large multi-unit developments.

The bill prevents developers from getting proxy votes or power of attorney through provisions in the sale contract. It requires executive committee candidates to disclose their connection to the developer and original owner before an election. It removes by-law exemptions that allow developers to get exclusive use of car parks before a third of lots have been sold. The bill clarifies that regardless of the name of a position, someone who carries out the role of the caretaker is subject to the same provisions and requirements under the Act. It also ensures Fair Trading inspectors can access common property at the request of an owner. The absence of safeguards in the past has caused years of distress and expense to strata owners and has allowed occupation of defective and non-compliant buildings. There is more to be done to fully protect consumers and residents and I call on the Government to continue to review strata title law and processes.

I also support the removal of place of public entertainment licences, known as POPEs, which have for too many years discouraged live entertainment in this State, favouring venues with television screens and poker machines. However, the eleventh hour introduction of the place of public entertainment reform is a cynical and transparent attempt by the Minister for Planning to get the support of the "raise the bar" group for quite shocking and undemocratic changes to planning legislation. The Building Professionals Amendment Bill introduces bandaid measures in an attempt to make bad policy look better. I opposed the original introduction of private certifiers on the basis of conflict of interest. It has led to development that does not comply and incomplete defective buildings. It is a cause for alarm over safety. At the time my stance was supported by the former Lord Mayor, now the Minister for Planning, who said at the time, "Any fool should be able to see the enormous conflict of interest that [private certifiers] have got."

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 is pushing private interest over public interest, with its unresolved failings and potential to destroy amenity, degrade our environment and extend the climate of corruption in New South Wales. It virtually wipes out the progressive and environmentally responsible Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 with its public involvement focus. A previous Labor Government proudly introduced the legislation in response to community anger over development excesses during the Askin years. This Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is the worst legislation I have seen in 20 years in this place. I am amazed that it has been allowed to progress so far. It has been introduced and is being rushed through on the night the budget has been introduced, following the suspension of standing orders and a change to the program. Why is it being rushed through on the night the Government has introduced its budget? We all know the answer to that.

This bill reduces communities' say in local development and transfers planning decisions from elected representatives to bodies predominantly hand-picked by the Minister, or by developers, to make decisions behind closed doors. The bill removes processes that are in place to protect environment, heritage and neighbourhood and community amenity and reduces the role of the independent Land and Environment Court. People and communities will be excluded. If this bill is enacted, our planning system will be more conducive to corruption, not less. There is no excuse in a democracy, whatever the claimed benefits or otherwise, for excluding people from being informed about and involved in issues that affect them and their lives.

The process of getting this legislation to Parliament has been appalling. So-called consultation began with a $250 a seat seminar in August last year. Each council was given one free seat. A discussion paper was released over the Christmas summer break followed in April by lengthy draft bills, with only three weeks to assess them. Much of the detail is not available with regulations and final codes to come. This is asking the people of New South Wales to sign a blank cheque and trust the Government and this Minister. At a time when global warming threatens our planet's future and the very future of our children I cannot believe that reform does not focus on sustainable development to reduce damaging emissions, ration scarce resources and address energy consumption.

The challenge for us now is to create environmentally and socially sustainable places in which an increasing population can live. These so-called reforms seek to fast track development at any cost and ignore the urgent need to incorporate sustainability goals. I fear that our urban environment, which is where the majority of Australians live, will be shaped by vested interests for short-term profit, while sustainability, design excellence and community benefit will be compromised. The bill takes us back to the 1960s and the 1970s. It is alarming that the State Government is presenting the introduction of so-called independent planning bodies and panels as part of the solution to address planning corruption exposed by recent scandals, in particular, in Wollongong.

Councillors are directly accountable to the people that they serve and the public vote for them. They can be voted out. They must declare pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests at public meetings before assessing developments. Joint regional planning panels will have three ministerial appointees and only two local appointees, and the Planning Assessment Commission will be comprised entirely of ministerial appointees. The Minister will appoint chairpersons. Pecuniary interests are disclosed at private meetings and are available in a book that can be inspected for a fee determined by the body. The legislation will enable panels to be stacked with development professionals whose future livelihoods depend on relations with industry and with the Minister.

The Government expects us to believe that the same level of accountability and transparency will be achieved through these panels. It should be noted that the Wollongong scandal not only involved corrupt Labor councillors; it also involved corrupt planning professionals. Allowing the planning Minister to delegate the extraordinary development assessment powers under part 3A of the Environmental Protection and Assessment Act to a body comprising ministerial appointees will not increase transparency or reduce risks and perceived risks of corruption. This is particularly outrageous, given the recent exposure of substantial development donations to major parties and to individuals within those parties, including Ministers.

It is a betrayal of consumer protection, transparency and accountability to allow developers to select and pay the person who checks whether a development complies with council conditions and building standards. The Minister said that the bill does not give private certifiers new powers, but certifiers can approve complying development, which will be expanded to include approving new dwellings. The Paddington Society believes that private certifiers are the biggest threat to Paddington's heritage and points out shocking examples of destruction permitted by private certifiers. This would apply equally to Balmain, Glebe, Redfern, Surry Hills or any of those Victorian neighbourhoods. The Minister flagged that complying codes should include internal work in heritage buildings. However, all heritage experts believe that heritage is more than just a facade; internal detail is also important.

In a recent Sydney Morning Herald article the National Trust pointed out that heritage value areas are not always heritage listed. It rightly fears that, unlike local government which has local knowledge and sensitivities, private certifiers do not and heritage could be lost. The role of elected councils is to balance public interests with competing interests within the broader context of community, environment and the future. That is what I support and that is what I would have thought all parliamentarians would have supported. A council's right to challenge complying construction certificates will be removed if it takes more than 21 days to respond to a certifier's request for advice. This timeframe, while increased from 14 days in the draft bill, is far too short, given the potential serious consequences, and it will be a particular problem if advice is sought around the Christmas break.

If there are delays that prevent councils from providing advice, given the potential impacts of inappropriate and unauthorised work, where there is doubt councils will be inclined to deem proposals not consistent. Consultation is removed but residents get a courtesy notice, the details of which will be in the regulations. That will apply to all members' constituents and they will hear from them. It is essential that these notices include plan details so that neighbours know what was approved. I am concerned that restrictions on complying development for critical habitat, wilderness areas, interim heritage orders or items of environmental heritage have been removed and could further reduce environment and heritage protection.

All land development is important. Often it is the smaller developments that require more skilful and sensitive design input. That is particularly so in urban consolidated areas. Under the bill reviews of arbitrator matters will be done by arbitrators appointed by the director general from a list approved by the Minister. Planning arbitrators have one-year appointments, can be removed for no reason by the Minister and, typically, will be development professionals. However, the Land and Environment Court commissioner works full time, has a fixed seven-year term and receives a salary irrespective of whether determinations support or oppose development, and Land and Environment Court hearings are public. There is a genuine separation of powers making the court independent of executive government.

Under this legislation councils will not even be able to appeal to the Land and Environment Court to oppose arbitrator reviews, but councils are best placed to understand the compliance and impact of a development. There will be provisions for third-party objections but, unlike pro-development appeals, third-party objectors will not be able to access the Land and Environment Court. While there is an argument for a gateway process for local environmental plans, how can the Minister, who does not have local knowledge, determine community needs and aspirations? As local representatives, councillors understand the community's needs and are best placed to determine the appropriate level of consultation. Consultation should be via local government.

The bill provides for consultation only before the development of a plan and not in response to a final proposal. This denies the community—our communities—an opportunity to respond to specific plans, which will have impacts that are not apparent in the gateway process. I strongly oppose that aspect of the bill. The proposed provisions that would allow the Minister and other bodies to make or change local environmental plans if a council fails to comply with obligations in a "satisfactory" manner, are typical of a number of sweeping powers for intervention with loose definitions that encourage developers to lobby the Minister to bypass councils.

In conclusion, the Minister seeks to justify these proposals by claiming that they will benefit "mum and dad" applicants, but this is to be achieved by excluding "mums and dads" who are neighbours—our constituents. My experience as an inner city representative is that the older, long-term residents living in areas where values have increased are most vulnerable to amenity impacts by new wealthy residents. It would be reasonable to expect that any reform would aim for process simplification and open decision-making, and for clearly defined steps and governing criteria. But these proposals are confused and complicated with diminished capacity for open and transparent decision-making and subjective and inadequately defined rules.

This legislation stuns me with its blatant ineptitude and attack on democratic principles. I cannot believe that a democratically elected government would propose reforms that exclude the involvement of citizens. The Government is so embroiled in the developer donation scandal of influenced decision-making it is prepared to sell out planning development and heritage decisions to developers. Sustainable development is so critical that controls are being fast-tracked for developer convenience and oversight removed from a democratic tier of government. Many members of this House who have come from local government and who believe, or who believed, in grassroots democracy are mute or are meekly supporting this travesty of democracy.

What stage have we reached in this State when unelected hired hands are given the reins to our built environment and are charged with the design and sustainability of our neighbourhoods? I oppose this shantytown amendment bill, which rubbishes our cities, our State and our future. I support the widespread call for an independent upper House public inquiry into the planning system to maintain democratic involvement, abolish conflict of interest and influence, protect heritage and the environment, and address the critical issues of global warming and diminishing energy resources. Given that I support the Strata Management Legislation Amendment Bill I ask the Speaker to put the agreement in principle question on these bills as separate questions.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [6.17 p.m.]: I indicate at the outset that, as a former councillor, I fully support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. When the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was introduced in 1979 it was a watershed moment for environmental assessment in New South Wales. The new Act led the nation. Over the years the Act has been extended, altered and interpreted by the courts to the point where one could argue that it no longer fulfils its original intention. It is time for reform. One of the areas of the Act that is being reformed—an area in which I have a keen interest—is in the contribution section. Over the years this section has evolved on an ad hoc basis. It has become confusing and unnecessarily complicated.

I strongly support the moves of the Minister for Planning in this area to create a simpler and more accountable contributions framework—a framework that takes into account affordability as well as making sure that councils deliver infrastructure for communities and not just a wish list. The Local Government and Shires Associations have been misleading about and misinformed on the new contribution provisions. The Minister investigated all the council's contributions plans and the results are telling. While the majority of councils take a sensible approach to contributions some of them are rorting the system. They are approaching levying as an uncapped backdoor tax. It has to stop.

I note that the Minister said in his agreement in principle speech that, under the current provisions of the planning legislation, local developer contributions vary widely between councils for no clear reason. For example, in metropolitan Sydney, contributions vary from between $57,000 per lot to nothing at all. In addition, there is no clear definition of the kinds of infrastructure that contributions should fund. Some councils are using contributions to fund things such as council administration buildings, cat and dog pounds, and computer upgrades.

I understand that many councils also are retaining funds and not spending an increased amount of levied money—that is, not delivering facilities to the community. I agree with the Minister that something must be done about that. This bill is a step in the right direction. The establishes a new part in the Act for developer contributions—part 5B. The bill places renewed emphasis on three principles: delivering infrastructure, maintaining affordability and restoring accountability. The bill supports local communities by recommitting local councils and State agencies to providing infrastructure to meet the real needs of new residents.

This bill sets out for the first time key considerations for determining, collecting and then spending contributions—about time! Councils and State agencies must take the following into consideration: Can the infrastructure be delivered within a reasonable time? What is the impact of the contribution on affordability of land? Is the contribution based on a reasonable apportionment of new demand and existing demand? Has a reasonable estimate of the cost of the infrastructure been used? Are the estimates of demand reasonable? These key considerations will make contribution schemes accountable and stop these levies being an uncontrolled backdoor tax on the family home.

The bill establishes also a two-tier system for local council contributions, which provides flexibility for councils. Councils can levy for key community infrastructure without approval, as they do now. The list of key community infrastructure is set out in the bill and includes land, works and buildings. This broad list includes drainage and water management works; local roads; bus stops; sporting, recreational, cultural and social facilities; parks; and car parking. It includes also district facilities that have a direct connection with the development the subject of the contribution. The accusation by the Local Government and Shires Associations that these reforms will stop councils providing services simply is not true. It makes the council accountable, and this is good for local communities. I am sure the member for Strathfield would agree.

Ms Virginia Judge: Hear! Hear!

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: In addition, councils also can seek contributions for other community infrastructure, but first must demonstrate that a legitimate case exists for the extra contribution by preparing a business plan and getting an independent assessment of the proposal that address the key considerations I have outlined. The plan and assessment will need the approval of the Minister. The Minister spoke to Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly councils last Wednesday night. Like most people, councillors were not aware of this provision, and they were impressed with the reforms because they were about being accountable.

The same approval requirement will apply when councils use a voluntary planning agreement to get the extra contribution. In this case the approval of the Minister for Planning will be required not just for additional community infrastructure, but also for provision of any public infrastructure that could be obtained under a planning agreement beyond key community infrastructure. I am pleased that the bill retains key provisions of the existing legislation to ensure that councils continue to obtain the full range of community infrastructure—the former public amenities and public services—subject to the new accountability requirements the Minister outlined.

Similarly, although the bill adopts new terms such as "public infrastructure" and "the provision of public infrastructure", it preserves the range of infrastructure and other public benefits local councils and other planning authorities can obtain legally under a voluntary planning agreement. Finally, the bill leaves untouched also the range of infrastructure requiring a contribution in a State contributions area. I am pleased—I am sure that the member for Maroubra also is pleased—that the bill strengthens the anti-double dipping provisions of the existing Act. This will end unjustified doubling dipping between subdivision approval and grant of development consent for a subsequent dwelling or other development.

Councils still will be able to seek a direct contribution, the former section 94, or an indirect contribution, the former section 94A flat rate 1 per cent levy, but not both. While an indirect levy will generally remain limited to 1 per cent of the development cost, the bill provides that councils can seek a higher rate from the Minister for Planning in the same way they can for additional community infrastructure. The bill strikes the right balance between allowing councils flexibility to seek an appropriate or increased levy, and ensuring affordability considerations are protected through appropriate accountability measures such as a business plan and independent verification.

The bill will allow improved reporting of development contributions, their collection and spending, and applies new rigour to the delivery of infrastructure requiring time frames to be met for each infrastructure item. If a council is not delivering the infrastructure for communities, as a last resort the council can be directed to use those unspent contributions to provide infrastructure to new and existing communities within reasonable time frames. I repeat: that is a provision of last resort. I am glad the Minister and the Government have listened to community concerns. The bill allows councils to continue to hold and manage their community contributions with one exception. Let us be clear: the State Government will not be taking any other council contributions.

I understand that with respect to Sydney's north-west and south-west growth centres, the bill will amend the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 to establish a Community Infrastructure Trust Fund to be managed by Treasury. A significant part of Camden is in the south-west growth sector. In these areas the Government has committed to providing $7.9 billion in infrastructure, of which $2 billion will be funded by New South Wales taxpayers. The Growth Centre Commission has been given the job of coordinating the provision of infrastructure consistent with the release of the development areas. The Community Infrastructure Trust Fund will be established to enable the Government to manage the delivery of infrastructure.

Without the Community Infrastructure Trust Fund any of the six councils in growth centres could use contributions to prioritise the delivery of community infrastructure in areas outside the growth centres. It makes sense that local and State contributions are protected and that spending is coordinated for the benefit of the new communities in the growth centres. This bill provides for an orderly transition to the new regime for contributions. Councils will have until 31 March 2009—nine months—to identify those plans where they have entered into legally binding arrangements for the provision of infrastructure that would not be key community infrastructure under the new provisions. Councils will have to adjust all of their plans by 31 March 2010 to comply with the new requirements.

I am also pleased that there will be consultation with local government practitioners, and the Department of Planning will update the development contributions manual and practice notes before commencement of the new part in the Act. The reforms being put forward by the Minister are sensible and measured, particularly for development contributions, and will help ensure that housing is affordable and communities actually receive infrastructure and services in a timely way.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [6.26 p.m.]: When I was first elected to Port Stephens Council in 1987 things were different and planning was much simpler. We recommended land zonings, which usually were approved by the Minister for Planning. We determined development applications, we considered building applications, and as the works proceeded we carried out inspections and issued an occupancy certificate upon completion. I say "we", but 99 per cent of this work was done by council's professional development and building staff.

It is interesting to note that in the late 1980s or early 1990s one of our residents complained that the house next door to her was too high. Her name was Judy Stone and she identified an honest mistake made by a council officer. The Land and Environment Court found in Judy's favour and recommended that all building approvals be advertised to affected neighbours. This was done already with development applications and although it was a huge impost on councils and applied a minimum 21-day processing time, it allowed neighbours to bring matters such as overshadowing and privacy issues to council's attention prior to building approval. Judy has forgiven the council, but this Act will do away with a neighbour's ability to protect their privacy.

In a later case a disgruntled neighbour complained that a dwelling under construction was over the height limit. The roof was re-pitched, but the Land and Environment Court determined that the floor levels indicated on the plan had all been raised. Council offered to reconsider the application with the actual levels—as it made no real difference to the neighbour's amenity—but the court determined that council could no longer issue retrospective approvals. This was another first for Port Stephens. The house was demolished. The builder went out of business. Some time later a waterfront resident improved an old boat shed without council approval. A neighbour complained. Port Stephens Council with the court's "no retrospective approval" decision ringing in its ears, suggested the resident remove the boat shed using a crane, allow council to issue the approval and replace the building—a relatively cheap option. The resident took council to the Land and Environment Court and $40,000 in ratepayers' money later the same judge ordered council to issue a final certificate on the boat shed.

A former Minister for Planning, Craig Knowles, introduced the coastal policy, giving the Minister the authority to determine all "major" developments within one kilometre of a tidal waterway from Port Stephens to the Tweed. A cynic might think it started at Port Stephens because the former Minister's brother was, and is, Newcastle City Council's planner—and I might add that he is an excellent planner who is doing a good job.

One of the first approvals was for a 14-metre high building in an 8-metre height zone on Shoal Bay—a limit respected by all colours of Port Stephens councillor since Adam wore shorts—but this development was six metres over the height limit. The department's excuse was, "We cut the applicant back by one floor". As mayor, I visited all coastal councils from Port Stephens to the Tweed, and every council was frustrated by Sydney-based planners determining the character of their towns, and ignoring local residents. We now have part 3A—so that all of us can share the pain.

I am not too critical of part 3A; the Minister has used it for good as well as evil. The Minister refused a huge eco-resort in a swamp at Anna Bay, and I thank the Minister for calling in Fame Cove last week. As the shires association meets just across the road we are debating a bill that will strip it of its powers—a bill that will submit the mum and dad ratepayers to the mercy of faceless bureaucrats in Sydney. The Act needs changing. I would put it back to the way it was in the mid-nineties if I could. Specifically, this amending bill has a few fatal flaws. The establishment of joint regional planning panels to determine development applications to a value in excess of $50 million represents another layer of bureaucracy. My experience in local government has solidified my belief that professional assessment and decision making with regard to development applications should occur at the local government level.

Councillors and council staff live and breathe these communities and are best suited to determine the validity of a development application—not bureaucrats in Sydney. I oppose the increasing centralisation of planning responsibilities within the State Government in both plan making and development assessment. I reiterate that local councils and councillors should be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the communities they represent. The people of new South Wales did not elect the Minister for Planning, who is appointed by the Premier, but they did elect councillors to represent them and their needs at a local government level. While I support ministerial oversight, when appropriate, I also support wholeheartedly the role of local government in the broader administration of this State.

I refuse to support this bill because of its erosion not only of local government as an institution but also for its erosion of ratepayers' rights to submit comments on development applications for single dwellings and other minor developments. The proposed independent hearing and assessment panels will devalue the input of individual ratepayers in the development application process and will enforce an additional, and wasteful, layer of bureaucracy when there is no need for one. Councils already have the ability to review and assess development applications by using their own resources. It is crucial that neighbours have the opportunity to make submissions on development applications for single dwellings and other minor developments. Judy Stone proved that 20 years ago.

Overshadowing issues are real. Privacy issues are real. Councils need the ability to assist sympathetic development. Private certifiers are a blight on council governance. How can the idea of a consultant having an approval role for a client who pays him to issue that approval be credible? Every one of the 152 councils in New South Wales can recite horror stories about the actions of various private certifiers. Private certifiers should not be final determining authorities; that role must stay with councils. I presume that this amending legislation will be passed tonight. It is just another aspect of the Government's contempt for democracy—contempt for local government. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act needs changing, but it should be completely rewritten. This amending bill is not the way to go.

Pursuant to resolution debate interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

[The Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]