Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I listened carefully to Ms Sylvia Hale’s presentation. I usually find her presentations on issues concerning housing and affordability of land to be well researched and she has a great deal of good advice coming to her about that. I thank her for some of the points she has put forward and I will present a differing view on a number of items. The object of this bill, which has come to us in a rather rushed state, is to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to provide for contributions for the provision of infrastructure in relation to development within special contributions areas; enable the Minister for Planning to give directions to a council in respect of contributions plans, development control plans and other matters; provide for the establishment of planning assessment panels and the exercise of council’s planning functions by those panels and by planning administrators; and amend the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act 1974 and the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act 2004.
Like other honourable members we in the Christian Democratic Party have contemplated these issues at some length and we have consulted a number of organisations to obtain advice on these matters. There is no question that there is a regrettable, seemingly continuous attack on local councils and their powers. We are democratic in our attitude and we believe that local authorities should be given as much support as possible in the work that they do, but we recognise that the Local Government and Shires Associations has for quite some time now been faced with a great many difficulties, including forced amalgamations, a whole raft of planning reforms, the removal of the right of appeal and lack of consultation. I believe the Government stands condemned on a number of these issues.
Even this bill needs a great deal of transparency and accountability, which we do not see in the bill. The centralisation of the powers into the Minister’s direct control over local councils is something that we do not encourage. As far as possible the planning of local areas should be pushed down to people involved in the local communities. However, we also recognise that many councils have been negligent in the way they have handled their section 94 contributions. They have made a number of State environmental planning policy decisions that have upset everyone in the community. They have been reluctant to be transparent.
There are inexcusable delays for many people—developers, builders and others—who submit development applications, and the delays bring upon local governments and the shires association the inevitable retribution that comes from those who get their fingers burned because of those delays, the expensive waste of time and so on. Local government complains there has been lack of sufficient consultation and scrutiny concerning this matter. I can understand that. It just seems to me, however, that the Government has lost patience with many of these things and the way that many councils have behaved. Minister Sartor adopted a swashbuckling attitude in his approach to the desalination plant and other issues—
The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Napoleonic, is the word.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: His decision-making approach has provided strong leadership on the issue of growth centres and he did a good job in dumping the green overlay that was presented before us some months ago by his predecessor, which caused a great deal of angst amongst people in the north-west and southern sectors. The Minister has now brought upon himself the ire of many of the councils and other people because it seems that this is another attempt to cut back on local democracy, impose government bureaucracy and build for himself quite an empire, as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans declared, a Napoleonic empire which makes him one of the most powerful men in New South Wales. Certainly his powers are equivalent to that of a Premier. The Christian Democratic Party has listened carefully to a number of professional organisations in this field and we are concerned, as they are, about a number of issues concerning the amendments to the Growth Centres (Development Corporations) Act.
We have examined the amendments to the Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act, but I will not speak about them now. My colleague Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will outline some of the amendments that we believe should be made to the bill.
Urban development in a city like Sydney is absolutely crucial to us all. Organisations such as the Urban Development Institute of Australia—which is committed to seeing good city and urban design and the infrastructure projects that are necessary in large cities—are to be commended for their work. They are making people aware of the reforms in this bill that impact upon the community and ensuring that local councils and others have an opportunity to be involved in the process. I noted the costs that large developers face as a result of slowness and inefficiency in council regions. Rod Fehring, Chief Executive Officer of Delfin Lend Lease, said it is four times more difficult and more expensive to progress a development in New South Wales than it is in any other State of Australia.
Many planning powers are being centralised in the hands of the New South Wales Minister for Planning—just one person. That is serious. We believe reform is necessary and we support some of the bill’s provisions. However, local councils must recognise that their handling of section 94 plans and contributions—I understand that about $700 million has been raised for specific infrastructure projects but is yet to be spent—does not help their case one bit. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. We will not reject the entire legislation but seek to improve it by amendment. My colleague Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will speak to some of those amendments in due course.