Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 8 March 2006, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 8 March 2006
______

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and their elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT (PLEDGE OF LOYALTY) BILL

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

AUDIT OFFICE

Report

Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 38E of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "The New Schools Privately Financed Project", dated March 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TOBACCO SMOKING

Establishment

Consideration of the Legislative Council's message of 28 February 2006.

Motion by Mr Graham West agreed to:

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

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (WASTE REDUCTION) BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.05 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Bob Debus: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The New South Wales City and Country Environment Restoration Program was announced by the Premier in November 2005. In line with that announcement, this bill will enable regulations to be made to assist local councils to deliver good environmental management outcomes and high quality waste services in New South Wales. The City and Country Environment Restoration Program is a $439 million investment by the New South Wales Government to fix the environmental legacies of the past. It builds on this Government’s many outstanding environmental achievements. The program will also help New South Wales achieve the targets in the New South Wales Waste Strategy, and deliver a healthier environment and more sustainable New South Wales.
The bill has two main elements. First, it sends a strong economic signal to encourage waste avoidance and resource recovery, reuse and recycling. Second, it provides a major funding boost to environmental restoration over the next five years to tackle our most significant environmental challenges. The New South Wales Waste Strategy was launched in 2003. At the time it was a first in Australia. It provides tough but achievable targets for what we can achieve and action plans for how to get there. The strategy relies on partnerships with industry, with local councils and with those who champion the environment. But we are still facing considerable challenges.

Despite a growing understanding about the impacts our lifestyle has on the environment, there is still an unfortunate trend towards increased consumption of disposable goods, that is, products meant to be used only once. This is not just an Australian problem. It is one faced by all advanced economies. Around the globe, the rate at which we are consuming and degrading environmental resources is unsustainable. A major component of the City and Country Environment Restoration Program is the strengthening of the waste levy—an economic instrument that has existed since the 1970s and is designed to encourage reuse and recycling. Put simply, it provides a strong incentive to manage waste in a more environmentally sustainable manner and to look for alternatives to landfill.

The new waste and environment levy will be collected by local councils and industry. It will create even stronger incentives to develop new sustainable waste technologies. The program includes increases in the Waste and Environment Levy of $6 annually, plus consumer price index, to apply in the five-year period from 1 July 2006. It is important to note that the impact on households of this increase will be modest. For instance, in the first year, the average household will pay only an extra 4� a week, rising to less than 20� a week by the year 2011—and every cent of this will be spent on programs to better protect our environment. This modest increase in the levy will allow us to plough an extra $439 million directly into effective conservation and other environmental programs, including the Environmental Trust. It represents the single largest funding boost for the environment in the State’s history.

The economic message sent by the new waste and environment levy will be supplemented by a strong regulatory effort to ensure that good operators in the waste industry will not be undercut by illegal operators. The program therefore includes an $18 million commitment over five years for a waste compliance and enforcement program by the Department of Environment and Conservation. A number of incentive programs have also been developed as an integral part of new environmental funding commitments. Over the next five years, this program will: help restore and protect our natural heritage through a $105 million investment in New South Wales RiverBank, a program to buy environmental water to restore our stressed inland rivers and wetlands; $30 million to establish new marine parks and buy back fishing licences on the Manning Shelf and Bateman Shelf; and $13 million to establish a High Conservation Value Area Fund to purchase Crown leases in areas of high conservation value.

The program will help create a sustainable future for country New South Wales through a $37 million Native Vegetation Assistance Package to provide grants for sustainable farming, farmer exit assistance and the creation of native vegetation offset pools. It will help revitalise our urban environments through $80 million for urban sustainability programs, including stormwater harvesting for recycling, waste reduction and increased recycling, and $76 million for Environmental Trust grants, including support for local government waste reduction initiatives, plus payments to local councils for achieving waste reduction goals.

The bill amends the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. It will enable the establishment of a local council waste reduction scheme for recycling, resource recovery and other reduction of waste, including payments to local councils for achieving waste reduction goals set by the Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC]. The bill provides a simple mechanism to enable regulations to be made that will deliver a scheme for recycling, resource recovery and other reduction of waste by local councils, and payments to local councils that meet the standards of the scheme. The Department of Environment and Conservation is working closely with the Local Government and Shires Associations to develop a memorandum of understanding that will underpin the standards for the new scheme and deliver equitable payment arrangements for those councils, in the levy paying area, that meet the standards. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

LAW ENFORCEMENT (CONTROLLED OPERATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.12 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Carl Scully: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Amendment Bill. Parliament intended the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 to provide undercover officers with protection against criminal prosecution for offences committed in the course of a controlled operation, to put in place tight accountability mechanisms for the approval and oversight of controlled operations, to remove any doubt as to the legal status of evidence obtained in the course of a controlled operation and to enable police, and like bodies, to fight against crime and corruption.

Undercover operations are an important investigative tool enabling law enforcement agencies to gain evidence to assist in the prosecution of crimes including organised crime. The Act provides for the authorisation, conduct and monitoring of operations involving what might otherwise be unlawful activities. For example, in a drug operation an undercover operative posing as a buyer cannot actually take possession of the drugs without technically committing an offence. The Act legitimises the actions of undercover officers and other participants and permits evidence obtained during the course of authorised controlled operations to be classified as legal and prima facie admissible.

The Act governs controlled operations carried out in New South Wales by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, NSW Police, the New South Wales Crime Commission, the Police Integrity Commission and Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. A statutory review of the Act has been conducted. The review report recommended several significant changes to the Act including the expansion of the number of NSW Police senior officers able to authorise controlled operations, the expansion of the circumstances in which a retrospective authorisation may be granted and the introduction of cross-border provisions in relation to operations that cross over from New South Wales into other jurisdictions.

Currently, the Commissioner of Police can delegate his authorising function to five officers at or above the rank of superintendent. The bill expands the number of senior officers able to authorise controlled operations to include all officers at or above the rank of assistant commissioner plus two officers at or above the rank of superintendent. The latter two officers must be specifically nominated by the commissioner. Essentially, the changes mean that the number of NSW Police senior officers able to authorise controlled operations within New South Wales is expanded from six to twenty. The expansion of the number of NSW Police senior officers able to authorise controlled operations will improve the current system by making the authorisation process faster. The bill will thus enhance the ability of police, particularly in regional commands, to combat crime.

Section 14 of the Act has been amended to allow retrospective authority for unlawful activity not addressed in the original controlled operations authority. The principal law enforcement officer, the person in charge of a controlled operation, may, within 24 hours of unauthorised conduct being engaged in, apply for retrospective approval for that conduct. Section 14(5) outlines the strict conditions under which a retrospective authority may be granted. For example, the authorising officer must be satisfied that the participant had not foreseen, and could not reasonably be expected to have foreseen, that the circumstances would arise, and that had it been possible to foresee that those circumstances would arise authority for the relevant conduct would have been sought. A retrospective authority is not intended to replace the normal application and approval process and it is expected that retrospective authorisations will be infrequently applied for. However, the new provisions will help to ensure that evidence of criminal activity is not later rendered inadmissible at court.

The provisions relating to cross-border operations are aimed at achieving a national investigative framework. A national Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multi-Jurisdictional Crime agreed to implement model laws for all jurisdictions and provide mutual recognition for a national set of model powers for cross-border controlled operations. The cross-border provisions seek to facilitate mutual recognition of activities that have been approved in accordance with corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions. In effect, an authorisation issued under the corresponding law of another jurisdiction will have effect in New South Wales as if it had been issued under the law of New South Wales. Conversely, an authorisation issued in New South Wales will have effect in another jurisdiction as if it had been issued under the law of that other jurisdiction.
In New South Wales the cross-border provisions will only apply to cross-border operations, that is, those that are conducted in New South Wales and at least one other jurisdiction. There are some significant differences between the cross-border and intrastate provisions. One difference is that the duration of a cross-border authority is three months for a general authority and seven days for an urgent authority. In relation to an intrastate operation, that is, an operation within the geographical boundaries of New South Wales, a general authority is valid for six months and an urgent authority for 72 hours.

Another difference between the proposed cross-border and intrastate regimes relates to indemnities. For example, for intrastate operations, civil liability is excluded for any claim, action or demand where the conduct was in good faith and for the purpose of executing the Act. For cross-border operations the State will indemnify the participant in an authorised operation against any civil liability if certain requirements are met. Additionally, retrospective authorities will not be applicable in relation to cross-border operations. They will apply only to intrastate operations. It is envisaged that cross-border operations will comprise a small percentage of the total number of controlled operations undertaken by New South Wales agencies.

Any differences between cross-border and intrastate operations as a result of the implementation of the model laws should have little impact on day-to-day policing operations. Every aspect of a controlled operation is subject to strict controls and monitoring. All applications, whether for intrastate or cross-border operations, must contain sufficient detail to allow the authorising officer to make an informed decision about whether or not to authorise a particular controlled operation, and the written authority in each case sets clear parameters for the conduct of each controlled operation including any necessary conditions.

The Ombudsman will continue to have the same monitoring role for new approvals in line with the provisions of Part 4 of the Act. This will ensure that such operations are properly oversighted. The Ombudsman must be notified within 21 days of the granting of an intrastate or cross-border authority or variation of authority and within seven days of the granting of a retrospective authority. Additionally, authorising officers must notify the Ombudsman of the receipt of reports on completed operations. The Ombudsman is required to audit and inspect the records of each law enforcement agency at least once every 12 months. In conclusion, controlled operations are directed at obtaining evidence of crimes and corrupt conduct not readily acquired by traditional investigative methods. The amendments will enable police and other law enforcement officers to be more operationally responsive, improving the efficiency and efficacy of undercover operations. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 February 2006.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.21 a.m.]: At the outset I thank the Minister for his courtesy in making a staff briefing available to me and the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I also thank him for the consultation and his availability to discuss matters concerning this legislation. Unfortunately, however, the various interest groups involved with this legislation advise me they have not had the same level of consultation. I have been told that only yesterday at the briefing for crossbench members of the Legislative Council the Minister's staff were asked what interest groups had been consulted about the bill and the advisers were somewhat uncomfortable. When they were pressed about who had been consulted they finally admitted that they had talked to no-one. This legislation, which is extremely significant in relation to local government development applications, section 94 contributions, contribution levies and development control plans has, at least on the advice given to us, not been discussed with relevant bodies.

Since the legislation was introduced, the Coalition has consulted the Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Urban Task Force, the Local Government and Shires Association, individual councillors from various councils, and the New South Wales Council of Social Service. All of these have made submissions in relation to the legislation. Some of them support it strongly, some are strongly opposed and almost all of them are seeking some amendments, which could possibly have been avoided if there had been wider and earlier consultation with the relevant bodies. The Urban Development Institute of Australia [UDIA] has advised as follows:

The UDIA is overwhelmingly comfortable with the proposals advanced by the Minister and the Government. It does, however, have some further concerns and I will advise the House of these as they have come to light only recently. The UDIA says:

(1) UDIA NSW acknowledges the rationale for the absence of appeal rights for Special Infrastructure Contributions subject to the levy being exhibited prior to adoption with all items identified and costed.

(2) The Special Infrastructure Contributions Plan (SICP) should be subject to regular indexation by a recognised Index (like S94 Plans). It should also be reviewed regularly, perhaps initially every year, then every two or three years, so that it can be adjusted for take up rates, and changes to the Infrastructure list.

(3) Special Infrastructure Contributions should be subject to a regular audit by an independent body, to comment on the level, standard and timeliness of delivery.

(4) The application of the SIC should be limited to the growth centres where a Growth Centres Commission or Development Corporation has been established to collect and expend the contributions. UDIA NSW is conscious that the temptation exists to establish new revenue sources for government in areas that lack insufficient planning and infrastructure coordination …

I interpose to say that I had the opportunity to discuss this aspect with the Minister and he has given me advice about certain developments where it would be inappropriate to use the growth centres commission process for these special infrastructure contributions. The UDIA goes on to say:

(5) The SIC can be applied to administration costs. The amount allocated to administration should be limited to a maximum fixed percentage, so that the maximum amount of dollars are converted into infrastructure, not salaries and consultant fees.

(6) Improved recognition should be given to delivery of services by developers using planning agreements. If a s93F Planning Agreement provides adequate contributions by a developer in relation to its development, the Planning Agreement should be able to exclude the application of s94EE. Effectively, s93F(3)(d) should be amended as part of this Bill.

In practice where a Planning Agreement requires a developer (or consortia) to undertake certain works that are included in the SICP, then the dollar contribution payable for the development is reduced by the plan amount, not the actual cost. This passes the construction risk to the developer, but allows for any cost savings to be recognised by the developer. The infrastructure is delivered as agreed, and the non-PA infrastructure can be funded out of the residual contribution.

(7) UDIA NSW respect that nexus is implied in the Bill. However, UDIA NSW requires greater reassurance that contributions collected within the Growth Centres are expended as a priority within those areas. Accordingly, there is a need to establish boundaries on this provision in s94EL, otherwise contributions may be exacted, from developers in Growth Centres and disbursed outside the area (potentially elsewhere in the State) with the result that the Growth Centre homebuyers paying the levy will realise a diminished tangible return on their contribution.

It is important to note that an organisation that is strongly supportive of the legislation has raised a concern about the structure and operation of the special infrastructure contributions. The other organisations that have been consulted have raised a variety of concerns. The Local Government Association rightly points out that local government is the planning and development system that, alongside the State Government, operates planning in New South Wales. The association states it is:

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006

The association expresses its concern that it has not been consulted and that, compared to other States, the scrutiny has been quite inadequate. It says:

South Australian Sustainable Development Bill 2004

The Local Government and Shires Associations are concerned by the lack of definition of performance indicators, particularly those to be used by the Minister when the Minister is appointing a planning administrator or a panel. As we have indicated, the Coalition supports in principle the implementation of a planning administrator and a panel in cases involving corruption, when recommended by the Independent Commission Against Corruption or when councils wish for it. But it becomes difficult when the Minister deems the council's progress to be unsatisfactory. Proposed section 118 (1) (b) allows the Minister to appoint an administrator or panel if the Minister is of the opinion that the council's performance has been satisfactory "because of the manner in which the council has dealt with those matters, the time taken or in any other respect". The Coalition has concerns, which are argued strongly by the Local Government and Shires Associations, which stated, when commenting on that section:

The association then said:

The association says further that it considers the legislation should be amended to make explicit the criteria used by the Minister; require the Minister to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Local Government before a decision is made; require a formal process of forewarning and enter into negotiations with the council; require consultation with local government with regard to the membership, appointment and operation of panels; and require the State Government to pay the remuneration costs and expenses of the planning administrator or panel. The association has concerns about the local infrastructure contributions and the special infrastructure contributions, which have been set out in the association's manifesto. I do not intend to go through them, other than to say that the association clearly has an interest in this matter, as it has an interest in development control plans. It is asking for certain amendments, and it is appropriate that the House be aware of them, because if they are not moved in the Legislative Assembly I have no doubt that they will be moved in the Legislative Council.

The association seeks to amend proposed section 94EE and related proposed sections dealing with special infrastructure contributions and local infrastructure contributions to ensure that the Minister, when directing a council to approve, amend or repeal a contributions plan, be required to give reasons for his decision; there be a formal process of forewarning and negotiating with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning council's performance in the area; there be consultation with local government in the determination of the level and nature of development contributions in the special contributions areas; local government have a right of appeal to the court in respect of the Minister's decision as it relates to both local infrastructure and special infrastructure contributions; the Minister must be required to provide reasons for his decision to take into account areas outside a special contribution area, and any payment should be subjected to detailed scrutiny such as performance audits by the Auditor-General and oversight by relevant parliamentary committees. I am not sure that the Minister would embrace the proposals with a great deal of enthusiasm.

The association is concerned about development control plans [DCP], and I will refer briefly to the three amendments they will seek. The association said that the bill should be amended to make explicit the criteria to be used by the Minister when directing a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP and give reasons for his or her decision in the interests of accountability and transparency; require a formal process of forewarning and/or negotiation with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning a council's performance in this area; and require the Minister to comply with requirements in the Environment Planning and Assessment Act and regulations when making a DCP or directing a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP. It is obvious that local government's amendments would emasculate the effect of the Act. The Coalition is concerned, as is the Minister and the Government, that an efficient system of development consents operates across New South Wales, together with an efficient system of assessing and determining the major contributions. This is not dependent on council-to-council assessment, but ideally everyone in the State will know what the issues are and how they will be addressed.

It has been pointed out that 45,000 housing developments were approved in 2004, but in 2005 only 34,000 were approved. Clearly, the amount of available housing stock in New South Wales is dropping primarily because of high costs and charges imposed on the development industry and passed on to home buyers. Ultimately the only person who pays is the home buyer. In Sydney especially home buyers are being squeezed out of the market. We all saw the figures released recently by the Daily Telegraph detailing the six most expensive cities in the world, five of which were in the United States of America: the sixth was in Sydney. If anything is going to be done to make Sydney more affordable for young home buyers, for the hundreds of thousands of young people whose ambition in life is to buy their own home, then it is important that both sides of the House determine what can be done to ensure housing affordability.

On our side of the House—and I give credit to the Minister on the other side of the House—we are determined to see what can be done to ensure that although housing prices will be high, which is an inevitable fact of the modern economy, they are made as manageable and affordable as possible to young home buyers in New South Wales. Housing affordability is the underlying criteria on which this type of legislation should be approached. It is not significant to argue who gets what; it is the outcome that is important. If the outcome is going to be a more effective system of opening up land, a more effective system of infilling of available sites in metropolitan area, then everyone would support the assessment of costs and charges and making them more affordable. That is the principle on which the Coalition approaches the legislation. The Housing Industry Association [HIA] has strong objections to the legislation, which they have made very plain. HIA states:

o Inequitable;
o Inflationary and
o Largely set by the Minister without any independent oversight

state infrastructure levy

The Bill should be amended to delete any reference to state infrastructure contributions or rejected outright

The HIA has taken a very strong stand on the legislation. It has prepared a fairly comprehensive analysis of housing affordability in New South Wales, including Sydney house prices and median house prices by capital city. As it is not within my capacity to table documents in the House—and I know what your ruling would be, Mr Speaker, if I sought leave to do so—I shall quote briefly from the analysis. The HIA briefly states:

Housing Affordability in New South Wales—Some Facts

It is extraordinary that the tens of thousands of young people battling to get a home are paying $1,028 in government taxes and charges. The HIA analysis further states:

The Property Council of Australia is supportive of the bill and has made clear its support after being briefed by the Minister for Planning. It states:

Planning Administrators and Planning Assessment Panels

The Property Council continues:

Although the Property Council supports planning administrators and planning assessment panels, it expects that there will be some indication as to what the criteria will be and the circumstances in which independent panels and administrators are to be appointed. In respect to special infrastructure contributions the Property Council states:

Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974

This is a similar position to that taken by the Urban Development Institute of Australia I read out earlier. It continues:

In relation to development contributions plans the Property Council states:

The Property Council seeks, in effect, three amendments: first, in relation to the criteria for the appointment of panels of administrators; second, in relation to special infrastructure levies and for them to be applicable only in areas proclaimed under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act; and, third, that development contributions plans should be subject to appeal and scrutiny in the court. The Council of Social Services of New South Wales [NCOSS] has been consulted also. NCOSS similarly supports parts of the bill and commends the Minister for those sections. However, it strongly opposes other parts of the bill.

Schedule 1 to the bill proposes changes to the system of developer contributions for local infrastructure under section 94 of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act. Essentially the amendments give the Minister power to direct a council to approve, amend or repeal the contributions plan. If the council fails to follow the direction, the Minister may make, amend or repeat the relevant contribution plan. In doing so the Minister is not subject to the relevant regulations and there is no appeal against the Minister's decision. NCOSS states:

That is the position of NCOSS. While it is not something that we would expect the State Government to deal with in the Legislative Assembly, it is a matter that certainly will be raised in the Legislative Council. Only this morning the Urban Development Institute of Australia [UDIA] also issued a media release reaffirming its support for the principles and the thrust of the legislation. I will outline where the Coalition is coming from. The Coalition will support the second reading of this bill. The Coalition will not seek to move any amendments in the Legislative Assembly. However the Coalition will have ongoing consultation relative to the debate in the Legislative Council, and that is clearly appropriate. After all, it is only in the Legislative Council that amendments can be carried against the wishes of the Government.

The Coalition believes that panels and administrators are appropriate. As I said earlier, the Coalition believes they are appropriate in cases of corruption when councils want them and in principle we support the idea that, when a council is demonstrating poor performance, clearly there needs to be some intervention process. The argument is whether we support the use of the term "unsatisfactory." Obviously that is something the Coalition will have to further consider. We are not saying yes, but nor at this stage can we say no. The levies are the subject of further negotiations. The Housing Industry Association's position is very clear. I have stated that on the record. The UDIA's position and the position of the Property Council of Australia show that all interested parties are seeking some form of amendment. At the end of the day, with a lot of legislation it is not possible simply to—

Mr Frank Sartor: Cherry pick?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: As the Minister says, it is not possible to cherry pick because once the amendment process is commenced, often piecemeal amendments pose a threat to the whole thrust and purpose of the legislation. We have to take that matter into account. I accept that the housing industry of this State needs to be encouraged and supported.

Mr Frank Sartor: We agree with that.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I acknowledge the Minister's confirmation that he agrees with that. I have had complaints about one particular council, which I will not name, that takes over 12 months to deal with swimming pool applications. I find that quite untenable. The Minister has given examples of other councils that take months and months to deal with simple planning consents. It is clear that, for whatever reason, some councils are dragging the chain. It should take 12 months for a council to deal with a swimming pool application.

A council may either reject or agree to it within a much shorter time frame than 12 months. I am not saying a council has to agree, but it should be able to give a decision. People are entitled to go to councils and say, "Look, this is my proposal. Can you assess it? Can you give me advice on whether you are going to accept it or not, or whether you will require it to be amended within a reasonable time frame?" The worst situation is when applications are simply allowed to drag on forever, as has happened in my council area of Gosford where the Minister intervened. Development control plans for the Gosford city CBD dragged on forever and nothing was achieved. The town looks exactly as it did in 1950. This bill needs to be examined and scrutinised fairly. I assure the Government that we are trying to scrutinise it fairly. We do not have the same opportunities as the Government because we do not have public service assistance. We have to rely upon talking to people.
Mr Frank Sartor: You have had all the briefings you want.

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I appreciate that and I appreciate, as I said earlier before the Minister entered the Chamber, the briefings that the Minister has made available to us and also the advice that the Minister personally has given. That is all appreciated, but we will discuss the matters further as far as Legislative Council amendments are concerned.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [10.50 a.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill is the next logical step in the State Government's program of planning reforms. These reforms are aimed at transforming the New South Wales planning system from a process-driven approach to an outcomes-focused approach. The bill allows the Minister for Planning to address concerns relating to the delays and costs of assessing development applications, to help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and to ensure a timely and efficient supply on infrastructure and amenities to new land release areas and other sites identified for strategic growth.

This Government is committed to cutting council red tape. The bill addresses concerns raised by the community about the way councils like Sutherland deal with planning matters. The State Government simply cannot stand by patiently while councils failed repeatedly to make timely, consistent and reasonable planning decisions. Every ratepayer has the right to expect and demand that their elected councillors act in the best interests of the community, making good consistent planning decisions with good sustainable environmental outcomes. The last thing they want is a bunch of party hacks continually squabbling among themselves. They do not want a bunch of councillors making lousy planning decisions, creating unnecessary controversy, calling black white, opposing every New South Wales Government decision, raising spurious issues and wasting ratepayers money just to get their names on the ballot paper at the next State election. But that is what we have in the Liberal majority on the Sutherland council. Ratepayers want accountability, and that is what they do not have in the Liberal majority on Sutherland council headed by mayor Kevin Schreiber.

This bill is about accountability. That is why last Monday night Councillor Schreiber issued a mayoral minute opposing the bill. Big Kev does not want accountability. He does not want the Minister to be able to appoint a planning administrator in cases where a council fails to comply with provisions of the Act, or fails to meet performance obligations. Concrete Kev does not want planning administrators appointed when a council's performance in planning development is unsatisfactory. And he certainly does not want the Minister to be able to direct a council or to act in its place to make, amend or revoke a development plan.

According to Big Kev, giving the State these powers is "cutting local democracy"—he says so, in his mayoral minute. He even calls on the shire's State members of Parliament to oppose the Minister's bill. As far as I am concerned, the mayor and his Liberal cronies on Sutherland council can take a running jump. This is legislation that the shire community needs. Concrete Kev claims the Minister will make the local environmental plan [LEP]. After millions of dollars of ratepayers' money, years of continued squabbling and a multiplicity of amendments rammed through without community consultation by the Rockdale reject councillor Kent Johns, who really could blame the Minister?

But let us examine some of the mayor's reasons in his minute. First, he says that the State-approved LEP will impose higher densities in the shire. This is the same mayor who only last Wednesday night opened a large block of flats on the Kingsway in Miranda. Next he is worried that the Department of Housing might build townhouses in all residential areas of the shire. I do not know how much money he thinks the Department of Housing really has, but certainly in true Liberal fashion he cast a slur on all public housing tenants. He wants to restrict housing opportunities for low income earners throughout the shire. He and his Liberal mates even have a policy of banning villas in all residential areas at a time when our ageing population is simply crying out for more of that type of housing.

In his mayoral minute the mayor also complains about development over railway stations. Well, the news, Big Kev, is this: We are building a new railway station at Kirrawee as part of the $174 million Cronulla rail duplication project. The new station, with its lift that will assist seniors, will be below the road—and that means building over the station. I am sorry, Kev, but the seniors and disabled people need a lift, and their needs come before the absurd demands by a council that severely would restrict the development of transport infrastructure throughout the shire. Given the millions of dollars spent on the new LEP and the years of uncertainty under the present Liberal council, the sooner the Minister makes the shire LEP the better.

What about the planning processes themselves? The Act allows planning administrators to be appointed to perform a council's planning and development functions. Councils such as Sutherland already have an advisory independent hearing and assessment panel [IHAP]. This bill extends that function to a consent role, saving time and money and giving the Minister more flexibility to target unsatisfactory council performance. While members of Sutherland council's IHAP committee have been both conscientious and scrupulous in their determinations and decisions, the same cannot be said about the Sutherland Liberal councillors. Council's report PLN042-06 of 28 November 2005 reviewed the operation of its IHAP committee over a two-year period. The report is telling.

Council has changed the independent panel's recommendations on development applications on 54 occasions. Nine of those 54 changes were made under a Labor shire council between May 2003 and March 2004. But a whopping 45 of the 54 recommendations were changed during the six months between April 2005 and September 2005, under a Liberal-controlled council. In short, that means that the current Liberals are five times more likely not to follow the independent umpire's recommendation than the previous Labor Shire Watch council. But as good and committed as the IHAP members are, their processes are being used and undermined to circumvent the delegated authority of council's staff to refuse non-complying applications. The main culprit is Councillor Kent Johns, who is currently touting himself as the next Liberal candidate for Cronulla.

When Councillor Johns is not writing anonymous complaints to the general manager about Shire Watch Councillor Lorraine Kelly or trying to bully her in one way or another, he is keeping an eye on development applications of interest to him. As soon as he gets wind of the fact that our hardworking council staff intend to refuse a development application [DA] under the delegated authority, Councillor Johns immediately refers the matter to IHAP. This often means a round of hearings with applicants getting another bite at the cherry. It means not only delays, as the DA goes from IHAP to the planning committee, also headed by Councillor Johns, and then to the full council, but also unnecessary cost to the ratepayers who pay for those IHAP hearings. Importantly, it also effectively undermines the credibility and professionalism of the hardworking staff of Sutherland council.

Application ACC009-06 for additions and alterations to a child care centre is a case in point. This application was refused by council staff and letters were sitting in the council out tray waiting to be mailed out. When Johns got wind of this he immediately referred the application to IHAP. He told council staff that he did so because there was "a high level of public interest in the application". As it turns out, there were nine objections, and Johns later admitted to a planning committee that he had called it up "for the applicant". IHAP refused and the council refused, the staff recommendation was eventually followed, and ratepayers' money was wasted. Of course, it took many more weeks for the application to be rejected finally, all because Councillor Johns wanted to grandstand.

I trust that the Minister will use the present legislation to take a close look at this particular practice. Grandstanding, infighting and bashing the State Government are the constant ever-present themes among the Liberals on Sutherland council. The Liberal council is not about good planning and good management. Every decision these Liberal councillors make, every State Government initiative they attack, every issue they create is done for one purpose and one purpose only: to win back the seats of Menai and Miranda, and to take over the seat of Cronulla from our old friend Malcolm Kerr. For example, Councillor Melanie Gibbons, who is the deputy mayor sits on the fence when the overwhelming majority of residents in her ward want the Woronora Fire Trail preserved for emergency use only. She has some unspecified "conflict of interest", simply because she did not have the courage to take a stand one way or the other.

Rather than give the residents certainty, Councillor Gibbons wanted the issue to bubble along until the next State election, during which time she will strut the stage as the Liberal candidate for Menai. She and her Liberal cohort Councillor David Redmond did nothing to fix the problem, and it was left to my colleagues the hardworking Labor members representing the seats of Menai and Heathcote. What about the Kirrawee brick pit? Councillor Johns was happy to put a line through 20 months of community consultation and through $500,000 of State, council and Sydney Water money and toss out a successful, unique local partnership just to make a name for himself. The Kirrawee project was put out twice on public exhibition as part of the people's LEP.
It was completed before Johns, the former Labor mayor of Rockdale, made his Lazarus-like reincarnation as a Liberal and headed south across the Georges River in search of a seat in State Parliament. Johns sought to delete the Kirrawee master plan from the people's LEP on 11 April 2005, when he rammed 45 amendments to the LEP through council without notice to Labor or Independent councillors. The planning Minister had no choice but to remove the Kirrawee master plan from the irresponsible clutches of Councillor Johns and his mates on council. I commend the Minister for doing so. By the way, it is no secret that Councillor Johns is out there undermining our colleague the honourable member for Cronulla. Johns is a mate of slippery Sam Witheridge, the Liberal destined for the upper House, who convenes meetings with his co-conspirators at Kevin Schreiber's home. That is if the emails the Liberals leave lying around council chambers are to be believed!

And what about Councillor Kelly Knowles, the Liberal who is eyeing off the seat of Miranda? One would have to wonder why the Liberals appointed her as chair of the council's desalination committee and gave her $100,000 of ratepayers' money to waste when Kurnell is not even in her ward but in the mayor's ward. The cynical might think that she wanted to get a profile before the upcoming State election. But when it comes to planning issues Councillor Knowles takes the cake. Councillor Knowles got her Liberal mates to vote for a two-storey height limit on buildings in her ward, which is C ward—no other ward in the shire, not A ward, B ward, D ward or E ward, just C ward, which just happens to take in much of the State electorate of Miranda.

As one letter in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader of 27 October 2005 asked, "Why C ward and nowhere else? Does this spell a return to the bad old days of open slather development by the previous Liberal council in A, B, D and E wards?" The writer went on to suggest that Councillor Knowles should focus her energies on our shire rather than getting her name on the ballot paper at the 2007 State election. The postscript to all this is that when Councillor Knowles put up this ridiculous divisive notion at a full council meeting, one of her Liberal mates nudged her and pointed out that her move would, to quote the Leader's John Mulcair, "significantly lop the council approved Cronulla Sharks redevelopment... and affect buildings in industrial areas". Clearly we have a councillor who does not know her ward, who wants to discriminate, who puts her ward first to strut the stage as the Liberal candidate for Miranda at the next State election.

Clearly we have a bunch of Liberal councillors running the shire who put planning and our community a very long third behind their political party and their personal ambitions. Good planning and sound consistent decision making are suffering. The shire community is suffering and it is time this mob of recalcitrants was brought to book. On 6 December 2005 in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader the Minister correctly described Sutherland council as "a basket case". For the reasons I have outlined, given the intent of the bill and its provisions, and in the interests of sound planning in my community, I fully support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.08 a.m.]: On behalf of the ratepayers and developers in the electorate of Dubbo I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. I agree in principle to the content of the bill, which is much needed. During my time in local government, from 1999 until September last year when I stood down, I experienced many occasions when development applications were approved by Dubbo City Council without any problems. Council staff cannot decline a development application; only council can do that. On some occasions I saw certain councillors vote in a block on an application either because a staff member had not let them do something the week before or they did not like the developer whose application was before them. A few applications went through against the recommendations of the staff in regard to floodplains. On occasion I went against the recommendations of the staff because I did not think the report was good for the community.

A planning assessment panel should be able to take control. I have no problem with that. I understand that the panel will comprise people who have an understanding of the community. There will not be only one panel for New South Wales, as if one policy fits all. It is a great way to go. However, I would not like to see control taken away from councils when a delay is caused because of a skills shortage of officers on the council. Areas such as Dubbo and Parkes have problems employing planners. At the moment Dubbo City Council is down about seven planners. The current staff are working their butts off and doing the best they can. However, the shortage can delay applications getting through council and the staff are under constant pressure. I would like to think that such issues would be taken into account if a developer complained about a delay in a matter coming before council. There are many reasons for this skills shortage. A lot of consultants in private practice do good work. A lot of residential and industrial development is occurring in my electorate. Despite the drought, people still have confidence in the area. As a result, private consultants are suffering a shortage of skilled staff. So they, like anyone who is after good staff, poach from local government. That is the main reason Dubbo City Council is down—
Mr Frank Sartor: And pays them more money.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: And pays them more money. You cannot blame them. They live in the community and their children go to school. The opportunity is there and they are happy to accept it, as they should. That is a good reason as to why there are shortages. If there is a problem and the delay is the result of a skills shortage on the council, I would like to think that the Minister would take that into consideration before an opinion is given. Some applications are delayed by councils because of the personal opinions of councillors. They may take it personally against a staff member or a developer. In Dubbo we call them CAVE people—councillors against virtually everything. If it is not their idea, they will not accept it. They come from a political affiliation, but I will not embarrass Opposition members. The staff members might get their back up and say to people, "We are not going to let you do a spot zoning," or "That is not going to happen. We have to do an LEP and peer review it. That will come to council and you will be consulted in 12 months, and perhaps three years down the track that new LEP will be adopted."

We would welcome an announcement from the Minister reducing the amount of planning. It is not right for a staff member to say to people who want to divide their 14-hectare blocks into two seven-hectare blocks—keep one to themselves and sell the other for their retirement—that they can have only a minimum of eight hectares and cannot develop the other six-hectare area because it does not meet council planning. The people will know who I am speaking about when they read this. Twenty-odd people want to do that. They live on a 14-hectare block they bought more than 20 years ago. They want to keep half for themselves and sell off the other half. They are all my age or older—if that is possible—and they want that nest egg. That subdivision was on the eastern outskirts of Dubbo before the one-acre mansions developed to the west of them and before the extension in the east went through. They are caught in a time warp.

Special consideration should be given to this issue. People are speaking with council about it. Why should they be penalised because of a zoning decision made many years ago that is not appropriate now? Someone said it raises salinity issues, but that is nonsense. There is no reason why that spot zoning cannot go through council. As there are 20-odd people affected, council staff and I advised them that it might be a good idea for them to hire a private consultant to speed up the process. Council does not have enough planners to expedite these things. A consultant would cost about $30,000 or $40,000 to review this and make a submission to council. If 23 of them put in about $2,000 each, it could speed up the process. At the moment, that proposal is bogged down as well. Perhaps a panel could speed up developments such as this. It should not take people this long to gain approval for their wishes.

Recently I spoke to a person employed by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources [DIPNR]. He agreed that the panel is a good step forward. It may not be the ideal model, but it is a step in the right direction. The panel is still needed to consider spot zonings, which can take up a lot of DIPNR resources. All aspects of planning need to be considered by the panel. The briefing notes say that the planning administrator cannot be appointed if council fails to comply with obligations under the association or if its performance in planning development matters is unsatisfactory. That is not necessary in any councils in my electorate. They are all wonderfully run and I cannot speak more highly of the general managers and mayors in those areas. The ICAC refers to corrupt conduct by any of the councillors. That needs to be considered, but perhaps that is another story for another day.

The planning assessment panel should not be swayed by the individual over the general wishes of the community. The community is generally the council. When dealing with planning issues the needs of rural areas are different to the needs of urban areas. I am pleased to hear that a panel will be set up in the area in which the complaint is made. One decision should not cover all. A panel may deal with a couple of issues and have a pile of assessments before it. I would like to think that the panel would look at every case individually and not fall into line with a decision given in the previous application. I support the bill.

Mr STEVEN CHAYTOR (Macquarie Fields) [11.17 a.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill. This is a bill whose time has come. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Planning on introducing it for consideration by Parliament. This bill should be considered in conjunction with the recently announced economic and financial statement made by the Premier on 23 February. That statement gave a clear indication that the Government rightly would streamline the New South Wales planning system to underpin the competitiveness of the New South Wales economy. This streamlining involves transforming the planning system from a process-driven approach to an outcomes-focused service.

Good planning and environmental outcomes do not require excessive processes or excessive delays. It is important to iron out those delays within the system, because the value of work commenced during the construction period of 2004 and 2005 amounted to more than $9.2 billion, a significant investment in our economy and very important for economic and job growth in our State. It is also important to consider this bill against the interim report, the findings and options by the local government inquiry, "Are Councils Sustainable?" This report, produced a few days ago and dated March 2006, says interesting things about the role of local government in the planning approval process. The report says:

Many councillors are not familiar with environmental planning controls or with their role in the applications of such controls. Public opinion wants to minimise councils' political involvement in the processing of DAs. The public wants councils to give less priority to town planning and DAs and more to basic infrastructure and services, a view shared by many in the State Government.

The report goes on to quote a ministerial task force. It concurs that the development approval process was characterised by a focus on process rather than outcome, inconsistent policies, varying procedures, and timelessness as well as a pervading sense of frustration and conflict. The process generally was not regarded as strategic, did not appear to focus on the quality of development as an outcome and did not encourage development in New South Wales. In many ways that is the current system. It is the reason we must overturn the system or make it far more workable. The bill will achieve that. The report was commissioned by the local councils. The commissioner was Percy Allan.

The report says some interesting things about public opinion. Planning very much is a people process. Of the 912 people who participated in the survey only 8.9 per cent were happy with elected councillors determining development applications. More than 22 per cent wanted the council professional staff to determine development applications. More than 35 per cent wanted an independent panel and more than 25 per cent suggested that councillors should consider development applications after having advice from a panel. These very important findings clearly indicate that the community requires more workable and flexible measures that remove delays and excessive processes from the development application system. The bill will achieve these goals.

The New South Wales Government determines about 400 major development applications annually while local government assesses 125,000 applications annually. In view of the bulk of applications being considered by local government there should be a drive for efficiency at the local government level. To address government and community concerns about the processes and local council delays, the bill will give the Government the ability to increase its focus on local government performance in planning and development matters. The bill empowers the Minister for Planning to move easily and effectively in overseeing the performance of local councils. Importantly, the bill includes more stringent performance reporting by local councils. In many ways the bill lifts the bar, lifts the standard by which development application processes are considered in this State.

The bill increases the flexibility of the Minister for Planning to intervene in cases of unsatisfactory performance by local councils. While existing legislation provides the Minister with the power to appoint a planning administrator where councils do not comply with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, this bill goes one step further by allowing the Minister to appoint planning assessment panels to exercise any of the planning functions of a council found wanting. I emphasise that last point. The mechanism is very flexible. For instance, if a council delays development applications excessively_more than 60 days_the Minister is able to appoint a panel including representatives with local knowledge to improve efficiency and remove delays in the process. Similarly, particular types of development such as medium density or high density may be looked at specifically by planning assessment panels.

Planning in my electorate—this would apply to all members of Parliament—is a very important function to get right to improve the quality of life for the residents I represent and for whom I am responsible. My electorate in many ways experiences the detrimental effects of bad planning over a 30-year period, particularly the concentration of public housing tenants side by side in particular suburbs. Improved planning processes are evident in my electorate in areas such as Edmondson Park, where we have learned from our mistakes and have an award-winning new development that has the potential for 8,000 residences containing about 30,000 people. This undoubtedly will improve housing affordability and choice, and business growth in the area. It should be acknowledged that in particular parts of my electorate bad planning has resulted in the need for improvement, which will only come through good planning outcomes. There is no doubt that bills such as this will ensure that good planning outcomes become a reality.

In the Premier's recent financial and economic statement he stated that the Minister for Planning will establish a task force of planners and urban designers to work with local councils to prepare city centre plans for each of the five cities identified within the metropolitan strategy. I welcome the fact that Liverpool is one of those cities. I look forward to the city centre plans improving employment and infrastructure within the Liverpool area. The Government is very much committed to employment growth and investment in infrastructure. A task force to identify and appropriately zone employment lands throughout the State, particularly in the Sydney Basin, is also a step in the right direction.

I have had the honour and opportunity to be a councillor of Campbelltown City Council since 1999. Similarly that council has undertaken employment land studies, which undoubtedly have helped planning for job growth in the area. The employment growth in areas such as the Ingleburn and Minto industrial area is a result of good planning outcomes that identify and appropriately zone employment lands. I look forward to similar things happening in the employment zone at the intersection of the M7 and M4, which will assist all of Western Sydney.

Sydney functions in a competitive global economy and our planning system must ensure that Sydney succeeds and stands out in this international market. I emphasise that the mechanisms in the bill apply and will be implemented by the Minister only when a local council has excessive processes and delays. That is, the powers afforded to the Minister are quite flexible but they are flexible to the extent of fixing the problem. Importantly this will lift the standard of local government approval processes throughout the State. It would be acknowledged by this House that the vast majority of New South Wales councils perform very well in their approval process but there is a need to lift the standard and to reform processes to remove excessive delays.

I turn now to section 94 contributions and new growth centres. The bill will strengthen the Government's ability to deliver infrastructure, amenities and services in new land release areas and other areas where there will be co-ordinated growth and development. The changes deliver on the New South Wales Government's commitment to fund important regional infrastructure in the new south-west growth centre. It will ensure that roads, public transport and other important amenities are available when new communities are built. This has important benefits for existing and future residents in the Macquarie Fields, Liverpool and Camden electorates. Special infrastructure contributions will be collected in areas deemed as "special contributions areas", which will initially consist of land in any growth centre declared under the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974.

The Minister for Planning will set the level of these contributions, which will reflect the cost of providing infrastructure, services and amenities in the area. As with section 94 contributions, developers will be able to provide the levy as a monetary contribution, as works in kind or by dedicating land. The bill provides that special infrastructure contributions may be spent on the provision of infrastructure outside a special contributions area, but only if the infrastructure and amenities provided arise as a result of development within the special area. This means that important regional facilities such as Liverpool Hospital may benefit directly from contributions raised in the south-west growth centre.

These changes build on the Minister's existing powers that already enable the Minister to fund regional infrastructure through environmental planning instruments, but add improved flexibility and certainty to the process. They also give more transparency and will enable the Government to achieve its dual goal of providing necessary infrastructure to growing areas and maintaining housing affordability. Special infrastructure contributions will be in addition to contributions levied by councils but will be collected only where it is reasonable to impose an additional levy because of the area's infrastructure requirements. For example, special infrastructure contributions will be collected for the major infrastructure and services needed in the south-west growth centre. In this area immediate and significant infrastructure expenditure will be required to benefit the existing and new communities.

This is about planning for growth in a more effective way, especially in areas where public services and amenities are needed before residents and businesses start moving in. This is a real issue in the area I represent, particularly around Prestons and the new release regions in the Liverpool local government area. We should always ensure that public services and amenities are in place before new residences and businesses are established. Importantly, the bill also prevents any double-dipping for the same infrastructure and services. It ensures that the combined total of local and State contributions in these special areas is fair, balanced and reasonable. As I said, that should be done in a way that provides the necessary infrastructure and with an emphasis on the importance of housing affordability. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [11.31 a.m.]: Let's get this straight: The bill has been introduced with zero consultation. Industry and interest groups have lined up to have a whack at the bill. They are knocking down doors to get to the Opposition because the Government will not listen. Some have called for it to be scrapped, others have called for minor amendments. The Coalition reserves the right to review this bill and to move amendments to it in the upper House. My colleagues and I have had trouble finding anyone who supports the bill in its entirety, apart from members of the New South Wales Division of the Australian Labor Party. Everyone, including my colleagues on the other side of the House, is aware that, unlike the Government, the New South Wales Coalition has a wonderful history of, and reputation for, consulting community and interest groups. This legislation is a sign of how little has changed since Bob Carr disappeared. Nothing has changed. It is a different jockey but the same tired old horse.

The Government claims to be a new Government. Some faces on the front bench are new, but they are still members of the old Government. In fact, some other wonderful new faces should be on the front bench. They would do a much better job than many of their colleagues who are already there. There has been zero consultation about the bill; members opposite are riding roughshod over local government. The arrogance with which this legislation has been introduced without consultation is astounding. There has been talk about lack of performance in local government and failure to meet key indicators. If the Government were a local government body, its litany of failures would have ensured that it was sacked years ago. An administrator would have been appointed because its failures are so many and so widespread.

I pay tribute to local councils. It is always easy for the Government with its cost shifting, continual bagging of local government and focus diversion to redirect its troubles to the good people who serve their local communities on councils and the good, hardworking local council staff. At times they work hard under difficult conditions. There are some recalcitrant councils, but the majority of councils and councillors do a fantastic job and they should be commended. I bring to the attention of the House some statistics compiled by the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who was a fantastic shadow Minister for Local Government. He points out that of the 93 members of the Legislative Assembly, 40, or 43 per cent, came from local government. Of the Australian Labor Party members in this place, 28, or 30 per cent, came from local government. Those members have turned their backs on the people who trained them and gave them the opportunity—

Mr Alan Ashton: Where did you come from?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: I came from local government, but unlike honourable members opposite I am not bagging local government. Of the 40 members who came from local government, 70 per cent are Australian Labor Party [ALP]members, 20 per cent are Liberal-Nationals and 12.5 per cent are Independents. Of the 55 Labor members in the Legislative Assembly, 28, or 50.91 per cent, came from local government. Of the 19 Liberal members, 4, or 21 per cent, came from local government. Of the 12 Nationals, 4, or 33.3 per cent came from local government. Of the 31 Coalition members, 8, or 25.8 per cent came from local government, and of the 7 Independent members, 5, or 71.4 per cent came from local government. In the Legislative Council, of the 8 members who came from local government, 62.5 per cent are ALP members, 13.5 per cent are Liberal-Nationals members and 25 per cent are Independents. It is easy to bully and attack local government. That is why I remind the House that we cannot forget where we have come from or the wonderful work local government does. The Local Government Association has made a number of submissions in respect of scrutiny of the bill and the insufficient consultation about it. The association has stated:

South Australian Sustainable Development Bill 2004

In respect of performance indicators, the association stated:

The Associations question the accuracy and integrity of the data which the Government has used to justify the Bill. Independent research commissioned by LGSA in 2003 established that DA processing times were reasonable, and that where delays occur, these are often the result of factors within the control of the State government and development industry.

It is true that the delays at some councils are unacceptable. The association continued:

In fact, out of more than 3500 DAs analysed, only 4% of applications went before councillors for a decision at a council meeting. In his media release dated 28 February 2006 the Minister stated that "he will work with the Local Government and Shires Associations to establish a new system for reporting on councils' planning performance."

They will look forward to that. More consultation should be undertaken. The association further stated:

While the Associations welcome the Minister's announcement and look forward undertaking further work in this area, at the same time we believe the Minister is placing too much emphasis on the timeframes at which applicants can seek determination by the Court (40 days or 60 days for integrated development) - this is not a timeframe in which a complex application can be realistically assessed.

The Government should also acknowledge that delays in processing DAs are often out of council control such as applicants submitting non-complying and/or incomplete applications; the critical shortage of planning staff and the difficulties councils face in recruiting qualified and experienced planners …

Anyone involved in local government knows that is a major issue that must be addressed. The association goes on to point out a major concern:

The current legislation enables the appointment of administrators under limited circumstances including corruption.

The Bill enables the Minister to appoint a planning administrator or panel under much broader grounds...

This is a very broad and subjective test which enables the Minister to remove a council's planning powers without providing any reasons for doing so. The Minister's second reading speech indicates that the exercise of the power would be subject to principles of administrative law. However, these grounds of appeal are limited to, for example, whether the power was exercised in a "manifestly unreasonable" way.

That is a very difficult and expensive ground on which to challenge a decision. The association does a wonderful job. It goes on to say that the legislation should be amended to:

• Make explicit the criteria to be used by the Minister in determining whether a planning administrator or panel (or both) is to be appointed;

• Require the Minister to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Local Government before a decision is made (as is currently the case) and give reasons for his or her decision;

• Require a formal process of forewarning and/or negotiation with the council concerned in an endeavour to address issues concerning a councils' performance before a planning administrator or panel is appointed;

• Consult with Local Government with regard to the membership, appointment and operation of panels; and

• Require the State Government to pay the remuneration and costs and expenses of the planning administrator or panel, with the proviso that where a council has agreed to the appointment or there has been serious corrupt conduct, costs are negotiated between the Minister and council.

I will now address some concerns—

Mr Frank Sartor: Why should the State pay for the non-performance of a council?

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: That is a good question. That is because councils and the people of New South Wales are paying for the non-performance of the State Government. The Government cannot have it both ways. We are currently paying for the failures of the State Government with continual cost shifting. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for the Government. I should have dealt with that a little earlier, but I thank the Minister for raising it. I now move to the concerns of the HIA.

Mr Frank Sartor: Andrew, you promised me 10 minutes.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: There have been so many interruptions and assistance from the Government benches that I am more than happy to provide more information. I appreciate the support of Government members. The HIA is committed to housing affordability and is deeply concerned about the special infrastructure contribution elements of the new planning bill. Those contributions are a new tax on housing. They are inequitable, inflationary and largely set by the Minister without any independent oversight. No equivalent charge exists elsewhere in Australia. New South Wales already has the dubious honour of being the least affordable State, with Sydney in the top 10 of the least affordable cities worldwide.

Over the past 10 years land prices have skyrocketed from $107,000 for a typical family block to more than $460,000. These hikes have been fuelled by constrained land supplies and a massive surge in the number and amount of hidden taxes and charges, for which the Government is well known. Double-dipping, excessive fees and charges and taxes on taxes are delivering a windfall of more than $150,000 to the Government, with its black hole, for every block of land sold to New South Wales families. Thanks to the New South Wales Government an extra $150,000 is added to the price of a house making first homes less affordable for young men and women, young families, young partners and young individuals. That situation needs to be addressed.
The HIA says it is immoral to ask new homebuyers to pay for infrastructure that is enjoyed by the community at large. For example—and I notice the honourable member for Manly is in the Chamber—the people of Manly were not asked to pay for their new ferry. Ferries are a service provided for the community at large and are paid for by the State Government—and rightly so. The HIA says that the Government must get back to doing its job and borrow for necessary infrastructure, allowing for those facilities or services to be paid for over an extended period, not upfront as proposed in the bill. I do not think anyone could disagree with the claim that no-one can borrow as cheaply as government. The HIA states that independent research shows government borrowing is the most efficient and technical means of financing long-lived public infrastructure.

The HIA goes on to say that the proposed rules governing the Minister's State infrastructure levy are inadequate, as is the lack of appeal rights. It also says—and the Coalition agrees—that while there are clearly elements of this bill that are welcome to the industry and interest groups, many of them come at too high a price. The HIA says the bill should be amended to delete any reference to State infrastructure contributions or be rejected outright. This is about consultation, and I have consulted with the association. Owning a family home has always been the centrepiece of the quality of life for Australians. Sydney's affordability problem is directly related to the inflated cost of land. The level of taxes and charges adds significantly to housing costs. These charges now total around 25 per cent of average house purchase costs, or $150,000. They add an extra $1,028 per month to minimum monthly payments and $220,000 in interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan. As legislators we should address that matter.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta) [11.43 a.m.]: I strongly support the bill, which amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments will achieve important planning objectives, including reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications, helping to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and ensuring the timely and efficient supply of infrastructure and services to support growth and development in land release areas and other important sites. These changes build on the significant planning reforms that were undertaken in 2005 in relation to projects of State significance.

The bill is part of the Government's ongoing work to ensure that there is greater certainty and efficiency in all levels of the planning system. The changes to planning law in 2005 ensure the efficient and robust assessment of planning matters that are dealt with by the State. But local councils in New South Wales deal with the vast majority of development applications [DAs] lodged every year, that is, approximately 125,000 per year. The way in which councils deal with their planning and development matters are critical to the housing, employment and investment available to the State of New South Wales. I am particularly interested in the provisions of the bill relating to planning assessment and panels.

The new laws expand on currently available powers and allow more flexibility to target problem areas. The Minister assures me that the powers will only be used as a last resort when a council fails to deal with planning matters efficiently and/or appropriately. Some councils, such as Parramatta City Council, already use independent planning and assessment panels to advise on development applications. The bill provides new powers to the Minister to appoint planning assessment panels to determine development applications. The changes will help the Government respond to community concerns about council performance in planning and development, such as delays or excessive legal costs.

Excessive planning and development legal expenses are incurred by some councils. Such costs take ratepayer funds away from a council's other priorities. The changes proposed in the bill make it easier to address such situations through the appointment of a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions in relation to local planning and development matters. Panels may be appointed in a range of other circumstances, such as a council failing to comply with legal obligations, if the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommends the appointment of a panel or the council agrees to the appointment. Panels will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local decision making and are likely to result in reductions in councils' legal costs.

I know councils are capable of improving their performance in dealing with local planning matters. I base this knowledge on the improvements that I have seen at Parramatta council where I am told that the average DA processing times have fallen from 159 to 87 days. I understand also that during the 2004-05 financial year, the council achieved a 30 per cent reduction on the previous year's planning costs. Some of the changes made by Parramatta to improve the way development applications are handled include establishing two design review panels to provide independent design advice on residential flat buildings, preliminary assessment of all development applications within the first seven days of the application being lodged, allocating more staff to assess domestic applications—less complex applications—where there is a greater expectation of faster approval times and improving the pre-lodgement process to ensure consistency in advice given to potential applicants.
The introduction of those initiatives is an acknowledgement by council that its previous performance was unacceptable to families seeking a determination on minor applications to improve their homes, and unacceptable to businesses seeking to invest in Parramatta and provide employment opportunities to the people in the Parramatta electorate. That acknowledgement by Parramatta council and the decisive action taken to address those issues should be applauded. Unfortunately, not all councils across the State are as progressive and as willing to accept responsibility as Parramatta council.

The actions taken by Parramatta council are consistent with the types of options provided to the Minister in the bill, options to ensure that all councils are minimising delays and costs in the assessment of development applications. The Minister advises me that such powers will be used in a limited manner and that the majority of councils across the State are dealing with their planning matters in an appropriate and responsible way. The Minister also advises me that provision has been made to ensure that panels and administrators have sufficient resources and powers with the council to be effective.

The Government is a strong defender of the role of local government in this State, but the State cannot ignore repeated calls by some that a small minority of councils fail to make timely and reasonable planning decisions. The bill comprises a range of practical and reasonable measures designed to improve efficiency and promote consistency in planning and development across the State. Delays have been increasing in some areas and that is causing frustration to residents wanting answers on simple home renovations and investors who want to create more jobs and prosperity for New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [11.50 a.m.]: There are some components of this legislation, relating to the appointment of panels and planning administrators, to which I am opposed. In his second reading speech the Minister referred to councils going beyond the 40-day statutory requirement relating to deemed non-consent, when matters can be referred to the Land and Environment Court. One size does not fit all in councils. My electorate takes in the Manly local government area and a large part of ward B of Warringah Council. There are specific issues relating to topography, privacy, views and so on. It is impossible for councils to comply with the 40-day limit.

There needs to be recognition that people putting in applications for fairly modest extensions may push the envelope, and the process of negotiation and compromise that takes place extends the time taken for the development application [DA] process and the time in which consent is given. Often the applicants will complain about how long the process has taken, but sometimes the fault lies with them. There is also the issue of local residents wanting the amenity of their area protected and to have input into the sorts of developments and the scale of development that takes place. That is all part of the local democratic process and part of democracy as such.

It seems to me the State Government treats the councils in much the same way as the Federal Government treats the States, that is, there is a move to centralise more and more powers in their own hands. It also seems starkly evident to me that under this legislation there is an increasing encroachment by Department of Planning on the Department of Local Government and the area for which the Minister for Local Government is responsible. I have long been concerned about the performance of councils and councillors, and how that can be dealt with. I do not believe this legislation resolves that. The issue is how to get better performance in-house in councils rather than imposing external controls. I have long argued that an internal Ombudsman is needed, perhaps for one council but certainly for groups of councils.

Merely looking at a timeline is totally inadequate. It may well be that some councils have a fast consent timeline but that may not necessarily reflect that they are doing a good job. Rather, it could be they have a "Let her rip" mentality and through it goes. Two or three months ago I had a meeting with the Minister for Local Government and put to him that his department needed to give more support to instituting internal Ombudsmen in councils. His response was to foreshadow this legislation and point out that the Minister would be able to appoint administrators or panels as a solution. I do not think that is the solution. We need to be looking at, first, whether a person can examine complaints and council processes at a local level and at arm's length from councils. That would mean that people would have a local remedy but it would also be a means of keeping councils on their toes without the Minister having to get involved.

A number of local councils have been sacked or have had their propriety and performance questioned. Over the years the Department of Local Government, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal have been fairly ineffective in coming to terms with all sorts of goings-on at councils. The way around that is to have a local Ombudsman who can examine complaints against councillors and the behaviour of council staff officers in the way they are processing DAs or anything else.
Development applications are the most critical matter for many people and it is obviously the area where there can be mischief, corruption or wrongdoing. It is much better if there is a mechanism or structure in place to deal with those problems at source, rather than waiting to see the results of an inquiry and the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Planning stepping in. We need to fix the problem at source. In the years I have been a member of this place there have been no amendments to statutes—although I have tried to amend the Local Government Act—and no legislation that have dealt adequately with this issue. This legislation does not deal with it adequately either. It gives the Minister the power to step in and impose a planning regime on councils.

I do not support that. These matters should be dealt with in-house through structures set in place at council level so there is a systemic improvement in the performance of councils across the State. That is better than the Government interfering or making appointments when the Minister perceives there is a problem in a particular council. He may miss all sorts of council improprieties in other areas. An internal Ombudsman could undertake a professional and factual investigation and ensure the resolution of complaints at community level. He retains independence and impartiality, particularly on a regional basis. It is a cost-effective system because matters can be dealt with locally and it gives the community a focus for their complaints about the way DAs are being processed, or the time being taken to process them, and the role of council staff or councillors.

I believe councillors should be removed from the DA process, as much as is practicable. They are at moral risk. That is particularly noticeable with small councils. Councillors know lots of people in the community and they are at risk of pressure from friends, friends of friends, relatives, or whatever, to approve or oppose development applications. Councillors should not be put at moral risk in that way. The job of councillors is to provide policy guidelines and put structures in place, including independent panels, to ensure the council does its business in a transparent and predictable way. That is what I believe should happen. Once again, it should be up to the local council to put those mechanisms and processes in place. That is still democratic because if it does not work, the council as the policy-making body and the councillors as the policy makers can then rectify or modify that arrangement so that the outcome is fair and equitable for all members of the community.

The notion of looking at the timeframe in which approvals should be made is simplistic and depends on whether it is a large-scale commercial DA or a residential DA. In my electorate the community wants quality, it wants its urban amenity protected and it expects the council and councillors to put mechanisms in place to do that. If the process takes a bit longer, so be it, because I believe it is the wish of my community to protect the amenity of the area from inappropriate development and overdevelopment—not non-development. This bill gives the Minister too much power to interfere in the processes of local government. It should be up to councils to make these decisions at the local level. That is what democracy is all about.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [12 noon]: It gives me great pleasure to support the bill and recognise the importance of the amendments to my electorate of Drummoyne. I certainly welcome the introduction of this bill, which will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendments build on planning reforms that were undertaken in 2005 to slash red tape on development, encourage jobs and investment in New South Wales and ensure that major projects in New South Wales can be assessed and determined in the most efficient and robust manner.

The key amendments will achieve important planning objectives, which include reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications [DAs]—very important measures. Recently the Minister had to intervene in the City of Canada Bay Council with respect to Breakfast Point to facilitate residential and commercial space for up to 5,000 people. Hundreds of DAs were being held up in the Land and Environment Court in cases between council and developer and 700 jobs were being jeopardised. It is very important to reduce delays and assessment costs.

The bill will also help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls and to ensure the timely and efficient supply of infrastructure and services to support growth and development in land release areas and other important sites. Amongst other things the bill will ensure that the administration and collection of development contributions by local councils are fair and reasonable. For many decades local councils have been able to seek levies on new developments. These levies should be used to help pay for services required for new residents, such as parks or community facilities, or to offset the impact of a development.

The New South Wales Government is concerned that the local development contributions system is not working as effectively as it should. For instance, there has been some criticism of local councils with respect to the way in which some contributions have been spent, including criticism that levies for funding the works arguably should be serviced through the general rate revenue. Last year the Government made some changes to give councils increased flexibility in the collection and spending of development contributions, and I supported those changes. This allowed them to spend more easily the hundreds of millions of dollars in existing contributions sitting in accounts and to negotiate voluntary agreements with developers.

Despite these reforms I am concerned that some councils still do not effectively utilise their collected section 94 funds. The electorate of Drummoyne contains three local government areas—Ashfield, Canada Bay and Strathfield. All those councils enjoy my support and I am always there to help when they need my assistance. But in relation to contributions, especially section 94 contributions in the Canada Bay area, which has experienced significant development with industry moving away from the foreshore, returning the foreshore to the community, for three years I have tried to extract information from council about the section 94 contributions and where they will be used.

For three years that council has avoided answering those questions or been unable to clarify the situation. I am sure that this bill will go a long way towards helping me, as a State member of Parliament, to inform my community in the new estates and surrounding suburbs about how much money has been set aside and for what purpose it should be used. Residents have been waiting years for upgrades to be undertaken and they are extremely frustrated. Footpaths and roads are cracked and, despite commitments being made to upgrade facilities, nothing has been done.

I welcome the bill, which will build on the planning reform work undertaken in 2005 to improve the development contributions system, and that will be a good thing for residents. Any measure to secure infrastructure for residents is to be commended. The Minister for Planning will now have the ability to intervene when legitimate concerns are raised about a council's contributions plan. This could include concerns about the purpose for which the money is collected or the contribution amount. I am sure that my residents look forward to the section being implemented.

The amendments will help to ensure that contributions plans are in place to complement the timing of developments and will prevent contributions being used for inappropriate purposes. It will also ensure a reasonable total of local contributions. This is important because many of the estates in my area were built 5 to 10 years ago yet money still has not been spent on infrastructure. The problem is that the cost of projects then blows out. The proposed law allows the Minister to approve, amend or repeal a contributions plan. It also requires councils to provide the Minister with a copy of the plan as soon as practicable after it has been adopted. I welcome this wholeheartedly as I have had immense problems with obtaining these details. The Minister advises me that he expects these provisions to be used only in exceptional circumstances. I call on my councils to do the right thing so that the Minister will not have to intervene.

Importantly for councils, it will not be possible to appeal to the Land and Environment Court against contributions determined under a contributions plan if that plan is made or amended by, or is at the direction of, the Minister. However, the bill does not affect the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court on certain administrative and technical matters. Provisions relating to local section 94 contributions are important to me and my electorate, particularly in light of new housing in the area. I support also other important components of the bill that are part of the Government's ongoing work to ensure there is greater certainty and efficiency within all levels of the planning system.

In relation to reducing delays and costs in the assessment of development applications, we all know that local councils in New South Wales deal with the majority of DAs, with approximately 125,000 lodged each year. The majority of applications are not from the big developers but, rather, from mum and dad investors, who just want to renovate their homes or provide better housing. Despite the Government cutting red tape, some councils still continue to drag their feet on development applications for no good reason. I regularly see constituents frustrated at councils not approving their DAs or not informing them of what is wrong with their applications.

The bill provides a new power to appoint planning assessment panels. Some councils already use independent planning and assessment panels to advise on development applications, so we already have a precedent. The new laws expand on currently available powers and allow more flexibility to target problem areas. The Minister assures me that the powers will only be used as a last resort when a council is failing to deal with planning matters efficiently. That is an important point.
Concerns have been expressed with respect to excessive planning and development legal expenses incurred by some councils. The legal bill for New South Wales councils jumped by 40 per cent to over $33 million in the two years to 2003-04. This is taking ratepayer funds away from councils' other priorities. Residents come to my office on a weekly basis after having received letters from council stating that what they want upgraded is not a priority. Councils should stop wasting money on legal battles and spend the money on infrastructure, where it should be spent. If a council is failing in its planning and development responsibilities, the Minister for Planning will be able to appoint a planning and assessment panel to perform the council's functions.

The new law will strengthen the Government's ability to deliver infrastructure, amenities and services in new land release areas and other areas where there will be co-ordinated growth and development. It will ensure that roads, public transport and other important amenities are available when new communities are built, rather than 5 or 10 years later, as occurs in certain sections of my electorate. The Minister for Planning can create further special contribution areas. This could include corridors or centres earmarked for housing growth in regional strategies. A new fund will be established to collect the regional levies.

The proposed law states that the funds cannot be used to pay for general government funding. The funds must be used for the provision of infrastructure and administrative expenses, and will only be collected where it is reasonable to impose an additional levy because of the area's infrastructure requirements. The bill also prevents any double-dipping to the same infrastructure and services, and ensures that the combined total of local and State contributions in these special areas is fair, balanced and reasonable.

The bill also contains provisions relating to development control plans [DCPs], which reinforce recent initiatives to provide greater certainty for communities and the development industry. Specifically, the amendments will enable the Minister to direct a council to make, amend or revoke a DCP. If the council fails or is unable to act as directed, the Minister may make, amend or revoke the development control plan. At present, councils can use DCPs to introduce onerous and inappropriate controls without sufficient public scrutiny, and at times in conflict with other planning and development objectives.

The community expects the Government to prevent councils from implementing regulatory requirements that have not been properly analysed. However, at the moment the Government is powerless to do so. In conclusion, the amending bill contains a range of sensible measures designed to promote consistency in planning and development. The bill also addresses concerns relating to the tardiness of councils, which is causing frustration for many residents, ranging from people wanting answers on simple home renovations to investors who want to create more jobs and investment in local areas. For my electorate, the bill addresses my concerns about the delays in provision of local infrastructure, which my residents and I consider to be of utmost importance. These reforms are necessary, and I commend the Minister for reforming the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [12.10 p.m.]: Since the Government introduced its so-called planning reforms in 2004 it has repeatedly attacked people's hard-won right to be involved in determining the form and future of their cities, suburbs and living environments. This bill is anti-democratic and anti grass roots involvement in planning, and I believe it is rampant hypocrisy from the State Government. This Government squeals whenever the Federal Government overrides its planning controls—as it should do; the airport is just the most recent example—or interferes in the State's share of taxation. But with this bill, and other recent planning reforms, the State Government kicks local government in the same way—overriding its ability to plan for local communities, imposing costs and restricting revenue. It continues the trend of the three tiers of government each blaming and kicking the other tiers, rather than focusing on their own areas of responsibility. People are heartily sick of this, and I predict that their dissatisfaction will make itself known at future elections.

This is reminiscent of the bad old days of the Askin Government, when a junta of big developers and Government Ministers controlled all development and planning, and shocking developments that were not in the public interest were negotiated under the table in the Minister's office. I do not see how this bill aligns with ICAC's recommendations to address corruption in development applications, and I am seriously concerned about the risk of corruption inherent in this bill. I support the calls of the Local Government Association of New South Wales, the Shires Association of New South Wales, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS] and the Environment Liaison Office, representing amongst others the Nature Conservation Council, the Total Environment Centre and the Australian Conservation Foundation, for this bill to be substantially amended.
I strongly oppose this bill, which allows the Minister for Planning to intervene in local government at whim, with draconian, unrestricted powers to override democratically elected local councils in planning for local communities. People elect local councils to plan for their communities and expect them to have the capacity to do so. The powers of the democratically elected council, and the community's ability to participate in the planning process, should not be usurped. Good planning with community consultation and effective determination of development applications can go hand in hand, as shown by the city of Sydney, despite the huge volume of applications and the major projects involved. If the Minister believes that councils are too slow in dealing with applications, the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Local Government should provide the support needed for councils to become more efficient. The should help them with the tools they might need to become as efficient as many other councils. Community input into planning decisions was won through the enactment of the progressive Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which was brought in by the Labor Government in 1979. Now we have this Labor Government winding back the clock and reversing those important reforms.

Unlike the Minister for Planning, local government councillors are answerable to their local communities every day, and are required to consider each and every public submission when drafting planning controls or considering development applications. The Minister in his second reading speech gave the assurance that "the Government is a strong defender of the role of local government in the State". One objective of this bill is to "help to co-ordinate local and State planning controls", yet the Minister did not even discuss these proposals with the Local Government and Shires Associations, NCOSS or the general community about what he describes as a "radical overhaul" of the New South Wales planning system. I share the view of the Local Government and Shires Associations and NCOSS that developers should be required to contribute to essential regional infrastructure, including public amenities and services, transport and affordable housing, and environmental conservation, especially in growth areas.

However, like them, I am c