Get Involved - Parliament

Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Published on: July 2019

Record: HANSARD-1323879322-106350

Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading Debate

Debate resumed from 30 July 2019.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) (10:13:46):

I make a contribution to the second reading debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The New South Wales Government is continuing to work to improve the planning system, which is so crucial to the future of communities and amenity of life of the people of New South Wales. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is the cornerstone of that planning system. Prior to 2017 the Planning Act had been amended more than 150 times and had expanded from its initial 137 pages to 300 pages. In 2017 this Government passed the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017. It marked the most comprehensive overhaul to the New South Wales planning framework since 1979, when the original Act was passed. The 2017 amending Act built on the Government's agenda to cut red tape and provided for a faster and more flexible planning system for government and the communities we represent. The restructuring of the Act into 10 parts, which are now comparatively easily navigated by updated and coherent section numbering, helped to streamline and modernise the planning system.

Before this Government introduced the 2017 amending Act, the planning Act had become disjointed and jumbled by the many piecemeal amendments that had been made to it. As a local government councillor for 13 years before coming to this place, I experienced those changes frequently occurring when time after time councils had to adapt to and understand another change, another tack, and perhaps overcome another layer of regulatory red tape. I understand the intention of governments is to solve problems, address issues and tweak the system to improve it. But making constant little changes to an Act that had been introduced long ago meant that it became cumbersome and difficult to navigate and sometimes contradictory objectives seemed to be at work in different parts of the Act. It is a challenge to navigate such a big system, keep it on track and reconcile so many competing interests in a complex area. That is why the Act has now become 300 pages long.

There is no doubt that the 2017 amending Act has resulted in a clearer and more navigable planning system for the people of New South Wales. I cannot claim that it is perfect and it probably never will be. It is an ongoing challenge to do as well as we can to meet the needs of the community. This bill completes the work of the 2017 amending Act and ensures that the new numbering and modernised structure of the planning Act is correctly reflected throughout the planning system. Some of the changes are very much machinery changes to reflect the structural change that has happened in the Act and they flow on to other parts of the system to ensure that they are properly referred to and represented in other instruments. In particular, the bill will make consequential amendments to the State's local environmental plans so that any references to the planning Act reflect the updated numbering.

There are over 120 local government areas in New South Wales. Local environmental plans are at the centre of planning for those areas and provide the framework that inform local residents as to how their land and land in their neighbourhoods can be used. Local environmental plans are the main planning tool that shapes communities and ensures development is located and scaled appropriately. That is why it is essential that the plans are up to date and that references to other legislation are accurate and current. It seems everybody has had the experience of moving into a neighbourhood with a particular character, living there for a while and expecting that the character will remain. But change being the one constant in life, there will be a proposal for a development that will change the character of the district. The planning instrument is the way in which such proposals and plans are assessed and dealt with. It is critical that the plans are as clear and as fair as can be and that they are updated to reflect the will of the community at the time. It is an ongoing challenge.

Change is the one constant in our lives. While it is an understandable expectation of people that a district will retain its character, the reality is that life moves on. Changes in technology, population and demography will have an impact on land use in our districts. Naturally people have their own aspirations about how they want to use their land but it may not concur or coincide with the expectations of other residents in the neighbourhood. It is important that these instruments are capable of providing a framework in which those competing interests can be resolved in an impartial and predictable way. Predictability is an important part of the system. People who are going to invest in developments—whether of a domestic scale on their own property or of a much larger scale—have the right to know what the rules are before they invest their money.

Before they go to the trouble and time to conduct lots of expensive studies and investigations, before they commit their dollars to contracts, they should have a reasonable understanding of what is permissible and a pathway to complying with that. Once they reach the end of the pathway, they should have an expectation that, if they put something up that is permissible, their development will be approved. Enabling that predictable, orderly pathway to development is an important element of our system. Predictability that the approved development is within the character of the planning instrument is also important for those in the neighbourhood. Approved development should not be outside that envelope without community consultation to approve such a change.

The bill will make those sorts of consequential amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation and other instruments that flow from the main Act. The amendments will ensure that the regulation speaks about the planning Act and that readers can easily navigate between the instruments. The amendments in the bill are not major, but they are important. They will continue to improve the clarity and accessibility of the planning system for the people of New South Wales. In 2017 I commended the Government for taking on this challenging and difficult task. As we recall, various attempts had been made to improve the planning system and those improvements were not always easily resolved.

It is important that we continue to modernise, to update and to try to find a pathway to predictability and certainty for people so that everybody can have a reasonable expectation about what the planning system will deliver, how it will deliver it and what one needs to do in order to plan a development within the guidelines. I think this is a useful and important bill. Although it is not radical in foreshadowing any great change or news, it is an important step in the process of delivering a predictable outcome for the people of New South Wales. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) (10:22:10):

I take this opportunity to wish the sports Minister all the very best on his birthday. He and I go back many, many years. Had the Minister been in Haberfield, I would have shouted today. The Opposition does not oppose the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and neither do I, as I am bound by the Opposition's decision. When I read the Minister's second reading speech, I found it breathtaking. I cannot understand why a Minister of his calibre could not help himself but to demonstrate hubris in his second reading speech. A second reading speech is absolutely vital, under the Interpretation Act, for courts to interpret legislation. Ministers have to be extremely cautious in their selection of words in second reading speeches. I invite the attention of the House to Minister Stokes' observations on 16 June 2019 when he said:

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017 marked the most extensive changes to the planning framework since the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 more than 40 years ago. I note the presence in the Chamber of the then planning Minister who introduced those changes in 2017 and I commend his great work …

The Minister went on to say:

The bill will also build on the good work of the 2017 changes …

I have to say that for a Minister with a PhD in planning law to make that observation is just a demonstration of hubris. I wonder whether the New South Wales disease is infecting everybody in this Parliament. It will not take long to quote the second reading speech of then the Minister for Planning on the 2017 bill. He said on 15 November that year:

Hansard

… the second reading speech appears at pages 70 to 73 of the proof for that day. I commend the bill to the House.

Hansard

That was the then Minister's contribution to debate on the 2017 amendment bill in this House. I went to the of the other place. I suggest members will find extraordinary the contribution that the Hon. Scot MacDonald made on 18 October 2017. He said:

Under the leadership of the Berejiklian-Barilaro Government, we have stripped out the redundant elements and are returning to a clear, useable framework that meets the needs of government, industry and the community.

The bill adds three new objects.

The third object was to "promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings". I ask Government members: How is that going for you? The Hon. Scot MacDonald also stated:

Building quality was also included to ensure building safety is at the forefront of all of our minds following the horrific Grenfell Tower fire. In response, we are introducing a new object to "promote the proper construction and maintenance of buildings, including the protection of the health and safety of their occupants". A clear building object recognises the important role of building regulations in providing for public safety and the safety, health and wellbeing of a building's occupants and users.

I again ask Government members: How is that going for you? How has that been going for the government of the day over the past two years with building after building showing defects, including new buildings constructed under consents authorised by the 2017 amendment Act? The reality of the situation is that a Minister of the standing of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces adopting the 2017 legislation in such an effusive way is extraordinary. There are significant problems in the building industry that go back generations. Two years ago a Government member pranced up and down in the other Chamber to claim credit for new legislation that was going to fix buildings and ensure that they were safe. In this place the Minister's contribution was only one line.

The reality of the situation is that there is an industry in crisis and it is causing significant problems with people's confidence in that industry. But who holds the government of the day to account? Does the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces think that every member of this House does not read the bills and the second reading speeches? Does anyone in this House think they do not know what is in it? Is there something wrong with the body politic of this State when Ministers can make ridiculous statements in the House and not be held to account? What is going on in the democratic fabric of this State?

The other issue I will raise in respect of the bill relates to the content of schedule 5.3, in which it is proposed to amend by legislation the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (Green Square Town Centre—Stage 2) 2013. That is not the normal way in which to amend a local environmental plan. The Government has gone through the process of having its department go through this local environmental plan clause by clause, word by word. But the fact of the matter is that the Government has ignored the fundamental objects and aims of that local environmental plan, which has imposed upon Green Square an absolute crisis. I have told this House repeatedly when I have called for moratoriums on population expansion and on development—even recently when calling for revocations of consent in respect of it—that the 2016 Census revealed that 38,000 people resided within the Waterloo-Beaconsfield, statistical area level  2, which encompasses the suburbs of Waterloo, Zetland, Rosebery, Beaconsfield.

That is essentially what we call "Green Square", where 38,000 people fit into just 3.5 square kilometres. Green Square and Mascot railway stations cannot accommodate passengers on the platform. They are being corralled by station staff at the mezzanine level before they can proceed to the platform. Buses cannot accommodate all the people or even move along Joynton Avenue. It is proposed that an additional 23,000 people be added to that area. If that were the case the population density of that area would be higher than any part of Manhattan or of London. It is crisis in the making. Blocks of units are appearing and being built on every street corner like weeds on what was formerly employment‑generating land. If this proceeds then the aims of the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (Green Square Town Centre—Stage 2) 2013 should also be amended because they are not being complied with. For instance, part 1, clause 1.2 (2) (c) states:

(c)to deliver environmental planning outcomes and benefits to the public and owners of land within the Green Square Town Centre …

I would like to know where that benefit is—

(f)to ensure that the public domain of the Green Square Town Centre is fronted by high-quality buildings having a scale and alignment that both define and contribute positively to the amenity of the public spaces—

There are virtually no public spaces with the council is despite to try to find some. But the absolute classic is—

(g)to maximise the use of public transport, walking and cycling by integrating land uses, access to public transport and services and the provision of on-site parking.

Extension of time

There is no on-site parking. []

If the Government had read the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (Green Square Town Centre—Stage 2) 2013 clause by clause, word by word, comma by comma, full stop by full stop, one would have thought it would also have looked at its aims and the planning failures associated with it. Legislative environmental plan amendments are normally initiated by the local authority but in this case the Government is asking the Parliament to legislate changes. The impact on the densities of Green Square extends far beyond the responsibility of the City of Sydney Council. The State provides for people transport, health services and schooling. We will never catch up on that infrastructure if the population is doubled.

Yes, Prime Minister

Government members should not pretend that this bill is not significant and make arrogant assertions in a second reading debate about how good it is. A simple tracing of the second reading debate shows they are still struggling to find a solution to the building problems they proclaimed to be solving in 2017. Recently on my social media site I included an absolute classic from —it reflected discussion that has been taking place in the media about the crisis in the building industry. Sir Humphrey walks into the Prime Minister's office and the Prime Minister says, "I've got to do something about the crisis in the city." Sir Humphrey says, "Well, Prime Minister, what are you going to do?" The Prime Minister says, "I'm going to appoint someone." Sir Humphrey says, "How long have you considered doing that?" The Prime Minister says, "Since this morning when I read the papers." Sir Humphrey says, "And how long did you weigh and consider what you were going to do?" The Prime Minister says, "Since this morning when I read the papers."

If the Government thinks that by either introducing a bill that does nothing in two years or just appointing somebody it is going to fix the crisis, it has got another thing coming. The background of the planning Minister is such that he understands planning. Everybody keeps talking about the 40-year-old Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that needs reform. There is actually nothing wrong with the objectives of the Act; since its enactment it has been mangled by the Parliament as it has tried to achieve political objectives or facilitate particular individual development applications without scrutiny. The Minister knows, as do I, that planning reform needs to go back to basics. The Parliament just needs to remove many of the amendments since its introduction that serve no purpose. Somebody with the Minister's background and knowledge should not come into this House, praise the work of 2017 and thank the responsible Minister for his tremendous effort when it clearly was not.

Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (10:36:00):

I contribute to debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill will complete work started by the Crown Land Management Act 2016. It will also make amendments to the New South Wales planning system that are consequential to this legislation. The Crown Land Management Act 2016 came into effect on 1 July 2018. The Act repealed the Crown Lands Act 1989 and introduced a clearer, modernised statute to effectively govern Crown land in New South Wales—one of our State's most valuable resources. The Act ensures that Crown lands will continue to afford significant social, economic, environmental and cultural heritage benefits to our community.

As a result of this Act coming into force consequential amendments are now required to be made to a range of environmental planning instruments. Local environmental plans and State environmental policies are an integral part of the New South Wales planning system. These instruments underpin the planning Act and accompanying regulation to build the framework of the planning system of our State. It is vital that these instruments are accurate and contain up-to-date references to other legislation to ensure the smooth operation and efficiency of our planning system. Schedule 1.3 [15] [20] [22] and [23] to this bill will amend the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 to reflect the repeal of the Crown Lands Act 1989 and its replacement by the Crown Land Management Act 2016. Similarly schedules 3, 5 and 6 to the bill replace all references to the now repealed Crown Lands Act 1989 with the Crown Land Management Act 2016 in various local environmental planning instruments. The bill will also remove references to the Western Lands Commissioner to reflect the abolition of this role by the Crown Land Management Act 2016.

The bill will improve the efficiency and clarity of the planning system for the people of New South Wales through ensuring that these planning instruments contain updated and accurate references to legislation. I commend the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces not only for introducing this bill but also for the changes that he is instituting across the planning system. The Minister's approach to planning reflects my own community's approach to planning. He is reintroducing to the planning system the principles of community-led planning. One of the big announcements he has made is the intention to work to reduce spot rezonings, which take away the opportunity for the community to have a say throughout the strategic planning process. This will give back a voice to communities in the planning process. In my own community the Local Strategic Planning Statement—the new process proposed by this Minister—is currently underway in the Mosman Council area; it will soon be underway within North Sydney Council.

These planning statements are an opportunity for local communities, through councils, to have a say about the 20-year vision they wish to see for their communities. This vision reflects their approach to heritage, character, local identity, open spaces and the height and density of developments. All those issues are raised with me quite regularly as a member of Parliament. During my regular constituent meetings on weekends across my electorate, one of the most regularly raised items are questions about specific developments or opinions more broadly about development happening in our area and whether or not that reflects the interests and views of residents. We also hear a lot about ensuring supporting infrastructure, services and facilities if we are looking at increasing density within our community.

I live in quite a dense community—probably half of my constituents live in apartments in dense housing—but significant developments are occurring across my electorate. It is right for us to consider whether or not we have appropriate schools, hospitals and sporting facilities, and whether our roads, rail and buses can handle an increase in population that comes from increased density of new developments. Unfortunately, that is not always taken into account when it comes to spot rezoning. The principle of strategic planning enshrines the need to reflect community interests. All the elements of our planning system should enable our communities to function well not only by keeping the character and vibrancy that we richly enjoy in a dense area like the North Shore but also by having the services, infrastructure and facilities to ensure that we continue to enjoy our community, including those who would like to join us and move in to new developments.

Residents in my electorate regularly raise concerns about public space. I want to reflect on the Minister's appointment as the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. Even though I live in a dense part of Sydney, being surrounded on three sides by Sydney Harbour is a great joy. A number of foreshore areas and public open spaces exist along the harbour. An election commitment I made earlier this year was returning 1 Henry Lawson Avenue at McMahons Point into public hands. Those who have been to McMahons Point would know that a beautiful reserve at Blues Point overlooks Sydney Harbour, which has a wonderful view of the Harbour Bridge. If the council lets you in, the view can particularly be enjoyed on New Year's Eve. An old disused boat shed exists at 1 Henry Lawson Avenue. Over a number of years the property owners put forward a development application to try to build a residential property at that location. The application was rejected, as it should have been, by the council and then by higher levels of the planning system and the courts.

My commitment during the election campaign followed a concerted community campaign which has been ongoing for many years, particularly by the Lavender Bay precinct, to acquire the land and return it to public ownership, expanding Blues Point Reserve. I joined the campaign in 2017 as the member for North Shore. I made the commitment with the then Minister for Planning and it has been taken up with gusto by Rob Stokes, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. Work and negotiations are underway for the acquisition of that land. I have also been working with the former Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation, Matt Kean, who had carriage of the clifftop park at Milsons Point.

Luna Park previously owned this parcel of land. It was purchased and acquired by this Government under my predecessor, Jillian Skinner, to turn it into an expanded clifftop park at Milsons Point. For those who know, it is next to Harry's Park and overlooks Luna Park. Significant work is underway in creating a beautiful park that reflects the heritage values of the site. Some footings of the old, original homes are reflected in the design of the boardwalks and the balconies that previously existed are now a lookout space. I have been told that it will soon be open to the community. This Government has made a wonderful investment of several millions of dollars in acquiring the space from a private owner and creating a space for public use. Being in an incredibly dense area of Milsons Point, it increases the opportunity for our residents to access public open space and enjoy the outdoors and our harbour.

I have also been working with residents of Waverton on the Waverton Bowling Club, which is another piece of Crown land. Unfortunately this club did not survive as a commercial entity and last year closed its doors and went into liquidation. I have been speaking with community members and representatives and through Crown lands this Government has provided a licence to the council to spend about six months exploring opportunities that it thinks would work on this location. I am also meeting with other organisations, including the Waverton Hub, to talk about what would be the best use of this space to ensure that it reflects community interests and community needs. Crown lands provide those opportunities to ensure that we are best investing in what our community expects.

As is the case with Waverton Bowling Club, there is often an expectation to have active and passive community space to ensure that recreation can continue to occur. I support and commend the bill to the House. I commend the Minister for Planning on the way in which he is approaching planning in this State and in my community of North Shore. He is ensuring that communities have a voice that reflect the interests and desires of people who wish to protect and preserve their identity and character. I thank the Minister for his custodianship of that policy and his strategic approach to our planning system.

Ms JULIA FINN (Granville) (10:45:55):

I make a contribution to debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The aims and objectives of the bill are to make minor amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Land and Environment Court Act and other pieces of legislation. I believe the bill presents a wasted opportunity. This Government was elected in 2011 promising to return planning to the people of New South Wales. Instead, it has done the opposite. In reforming the planning system, it has taken away every opportunity for our community to have a say on development applications and planning on a wider scale.

The most egregious and appalling example of this is the way planning proposals are treated. Labor went to the 2019 election campaigning that if a planning proposal was rejected by a local council then the Department of Planning could not further pursue the matter. Perhaps the local council would take on the views of its local community. I believe that the way in which planning proposals are considered is even more flawed. When it comes to council, there is no obligation for it to consult the community. The council is obliged to consider the planning proposal in great detail, to accept it, reject it or make amendments. It is then submitted to the Department of Planning for its consideration and advertised as a mandatory requirement.

In 2012 during my time on council, there was only one planning proposal in Westmead that was advertised prior to it being sent to the Department of Planning. I pushed very strongly for there to be consultation with both ward councillors—one Labor and one Liberal. After the 2012 council elections the Liberal majority of the council considered that consultation should be done away with all together and that we would not consult with our community prior to any planning proposals being submitted to the Department of Planning. Since the new City of Parramatta council has been elected, I have been inundated with complaints about planning proposals and the way they are treated by that council. It is incredibly inconsistent. For example, one applicant had their proposal for an increase in height and density rejected on the basis that it was in close proximity to a significant heritage building in the centre of Parramatta. Yet between their property and the heritage-listed building, a much taller and wider building was approved.

That negative decision was later reversed, but the initial decisions had a lot more to do with Liberal Party internal politics than with the merits of the applications. It was disgusting, and the wider community was very disappointed. There was a case on Marion Street in Harris Park where a planning proposal was approved that delisted heritage items not on the site itself but on adjoining sites. There was no consultation—even with the owners of the affected properties—about whether the heritage items should be delisted. The matter caused such great concern that the City of Parramatta's planning powers for that particular site were removed. The current council made all sorts of bizarre decisions about planning proposals. It has settled down now and is becoming a lot less peculiar, but it was a matter of huge concern to a large number of people within the community and is something that I still get a lot of complaints about from time to time.

Communities should be consulted on planning proposals from the outset. The way that planning proposals are considered is flawed. There needs to be a new way to deal with non-conforming applications that is far more consultative. Of course we need a mechanism to change the designated land use of a particular parcel of land, but the way it is done at the moment with planning proposals is wrong. As the member for Heffron mentioned, the bill also does nothing to fix the current crisis in building. He made a very strong contribution to this debate and is very aware of the issues involved as he represents Green Square. In my electorate, where a lot of units have gone up, people have experienced a number of problems with units bought off the plan.

One problem is that what is advertised and sold to people is often very different from what is built. Developers should not be allowed to advertise features such as soundproofing unless they are in the approved plans, and if they are in the approved plans they should be installed. Many people living in units facing the Wentworthville railway line would not have bought their unit if they had not been told that soundproof glass would be installed. It was not installed. The fact that that can happen reflects the problems with a whole range of legislation. This bill could start to fix those problems, but it fails to address a range of issues with the planning system. Government members should not be congratulating themselves on everything they have done in planning because planning in Sydney is a basket case.

This bill was an opportunity to fix at least some of the problems, but the Government has not taken it. Whilst I support the amendments and objects of the bill, I am very disappointed that it is not being used to address the widespread problems within the planning system in New South Wales. The member for Heffron was right in his comments about the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The original objects of the Act are still very valid. It was a very good Act, but it has been distorted and made less effective over the years by amendments made at different times for different purposes.

Mr Brad Hazzard:

What about Labor's part 3A? Corrupt and rotten.

Ms JULIA FINN:

And the planning proposals do not do that?

Mr Brad Hazzard:

If you're backing Labor's part 3A and what Eddie Obeid did, that is appalling.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Felicity Wilson):

Order! The Minister will allow the member to continue. She will be heard in silence.

Ms JULIA FINN:

I am not, but if you are backing the planning proposals as they stand now, if you are backing the way that planning is considered by the City of Parramatta and if you are backing the random method of choosing what buildings are built based on the merits of the developer rather than the building, then we should not even be having this discussion. Decisions are being made in a very random way that has nothing to do with planning merits, and it is disgraceful.

Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills) (10:53:50):

I commend Temporary Speaker Wilson for her contribution to this debate and her comments on what is happening in her local area, particularly with the parks around Milsons Point. It is a pleasure to speak to the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which has been introduced to the House by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. I commend him for his carriage of the Planning portfolio. As this House is well aware, the Minister is knowledgeable in the area of planning. He is very approachable and consultative, and has great vision and strategy when it comes to that portfolio. I commend him not only for this amending bill but also for his actions in his portfolio. I recall first coming into contact with the Minister many years ago, when he was the Minister for the Environment, regarding a planning proposal at Northmead in my electorate of Seven Hills. That matter involved potential rezoning of an area that was held in high regard by local residents, and it was pleasing to have a Minister of the Crown come to listen to their concerns in his capacity as environment Minister.

The bill amends the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As many members have said this morning, planning is a difficult and complex area of responsibility that is shared by State and local governments across the great State of New South Wales. The complex planning process juggles competing interests and deals with the future as well as the present. I commend the councils in my electorate—City of Parramatta Council, The Hills Shire Council and Blacktown City Council—for their consultative approach to planning processes. They take their planning responsibilities and consultative actions very seriously. The purpose of the bill is to make minor consequential amendments to legislation and other instruments in the Planning portfolio. The amendments are non-contentious and do not propose any new policy for the New South Wales planning system.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017 made the most extensive changes to the planning framework since its inception with the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The 2017 amending Act provided a faster and more flexible planning system for government and the broader public through reorganising, revising and simplifying the Environment Planning and Assessment Act. Since the commencement of the amending Act, some consequential and minor miscellaneous issues have been identified across planning legislation; this bill presents an opportunity to address those issues and further improve the operation of the planning system. The bill also presents an opportunity to make consequential amendments to environmental planning instruments following the commencement of other legislation. I will talk in particular about the bill's amendments to the standard instrument order.

As the member for Seven Hills, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Act as well as other instruments. The amendments are aimed at improving the efficiency of the planning system and continue the good work in the Government's previous Act. The Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 is one such instrument made under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The standard instrument order was gazetted on 31 March 2006 and prescribes a standard form and content for all principal local government environmental plans across the 120‑plus local government areas in New South Wales. The standard instrument order is the overarching instrument that helps guide planning decisions for local governments. It allows councils to regulate the ways in which all private and public land in their local government area may be used and protected through zoning and development controls.

Section 3.20 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is the source of the Governor's power to make the standard instrument order and amendments to it. The bill amends section 3.20 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to include additional provisions that will allow the standard instrument order to operate more efficiently. These provisions provide that the requirements or guidance as to the form or content of an environmental planning instrument that adopts the mandatory provisions of the standard instrument may be included in a standard instrument order. The amendments also provide that the requirements and guidance may be in the form of directions and that they continue to apply to the standard local environmental plan after the plan is made.

The bill also permits a standard instrument order to authorise minor consequential amendments to a standard local environmental plan when amendments to the order are automatically incorporated into the plan. The authorised minor consequential amendments consist of things such as the addition or removal of punctuation to avoid incorrect punctuation in the environmental planning instrument, the renumbering of a provision in the environmental planning instrument to avoid a duplication in numbering or incorrect numbering and minor amendments of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

Those amendments, like the other amendments proposed by the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, are not major but will improve the operation and efficiency of the planning system in New South Wales. Residents of New South Wales consider the planning system to be important to them. The constituents of my electorate frequently raise planning issues with me. Opinions always differ amongst members of the community, but it is heartening to know that the planning system in this State is on the right track in the hands of the planning Minister and provides a good, solid policy framework for all New South Wales residents.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK (Bankstown) (11:01:32):The Sydney Morning Herald

I speak on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I acknowledge that the Opposition has indicated its support for the bill and a number of members have indicated concerns raised by their communities. There is no doubt that planning issues were front of mind in many communities across New South Wales in the lead-up to the State election. New South Wales residents, particularly in parts of western Sydney, have many concerns about the State's planning system. I will not go through all the proposed amendments because they are not controversial. The bill makes a number of changes to various planning instruments, to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and to the Crown Land Management Act the effect of which is to clean up the 2017 legislative changes. It is clear that the Minister has decided to make his mark with this particular legislation. Back in May 2019 I was excited when I read an article in reporting that the Minister said, and, to be fair, I quote:

My ambition, and it is a way off, but my ambition is a future where spot rezoning doesn't have a role.

I thought it was exciting to hear that from the new Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. The article also noted the Minister's suggestion that no legislative changes would be required for that to take place. I was shadow Minister for Planning when the planning Minister addressed this Chamber. At that time I thought, "Fantastic, the Minister has changed his mind. He realises that legislative changes are needed to ensure that we end developer‑led spot rezoning in New South Wales." Sadly, the legislation before us does not, in any way, shape or form, do anything to end what is, in effect, destroying the character and neighbourhoods of many of our communities; developers are able to ignore local environmental plans and ignore the chief instrument that councils and communities rely upon in determining what developments can take place in their neighbourhoods. It is a missed opportunity on the part of the newly minted Minister. He long coveted this role, which he had held previously, and this could have been a wonderful opportunity to end one of the biggest concerns for our communities. Back in 2014 the Minister recognised that spot rezoning was a problem. He said in a private member's statement:

Spot rezonings have long been the bane of planning processes. More than anything else, they erode public confidence in planning.

Sadly, this is a missed opportunity for the Minister and the Government to amend the legislation and rectify "the bane of the planning processes" which "erode public confidence in planning". I am delighted to hear that the shadow Minister for planning, the Hon. Adam Searle, has indicated that the New South Wales Opposition will put forward amendments to that effect in the other House. Prior to the election Labor made it very clear that if it were elected it would end developer-led spot rezoning—what are now called pre-gateway or rezoning reviews. There are lots of snazzy names for this process but, in the end, it is developer-led spot rezoning.

This is undoubtedly impacting communities. I went from electorate to electorate in the months leading up to the election and planning issues were constantly raised with me. Groups, organisations and residents also wrote to me, so I have no doubt that there is real concern about a planning system that permits developers to dictate the controls that are put in place. Why have a local environmental plan [LEP]? Why have councils go through a process where they spend months consulting with communities, businesses, residents and developers to determine the best instrument to rely upon in planning their neighbourhoods for the future, when developers are allowed, in effect, to sideline councils and push through the developments they want, irrespective of what the community has relied upon in a LEP?

The Sydney Morning Herald

I suggest to the Minister that there is still an opportunity to change this legislation because it is still being debated. I know the Minister is a little bit busy—he might be at the gym, although it is not yet 12 o'clock—and that he has a bit on his mind. There is an opportunity for him, at the end of this debate, to foreshadow some amendments or to foreshadow that he will introduce a new bill to end developer-led spot rezoning in New South Wales. That would show that he stands by his words in this House in 2014 and his words said to earlier this year.

Mr Brad Hazzard:

Have you actually read the bill?

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK:

I note that the Minister for Health and Medical Research, the former planning Minister, is in the Chamber.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Felicity Wilson):

The Minister will remain silent and allow the member to contribute to the debate.

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK:

I still remember the former planning Minister going up against the former Leader of the Opposition, the then shadow Minister Luke Foley. I remember the long debate over the amendments to the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] legislation and the other legislation he tried to bring in during his time as Minister. In the end that went nowhere. It was obvious why he was removed from the planning portfolio. I still remember the chaos in this Chamber and in the other place when dealing with your contribution to planning.

Mr Brad Hazzard:

You supported those part 3As, didn't you, in your own electorate?

Ms TANIA MIHAILUK:

No, I never have. In fact, I am delighted the Minister wants to make a contribution during my contribution to this debate because I have raised many concerns about developer‑led planning. I have raised many concerns about some of the planning proposals that I think the department, the Minister and other authorities should have a closer look at. I strongly opposed the amalgamation of my council with Canterbury for many obvious reasons—one being the ICAC inquiry into Canterbury. I encourage the Minister to read the transcript from those hearings. It may explain some of my concerns as to why I did not want my council, Bankstown, to be forcibly merged with Canterbury.

Extension of time

Sadly though, this Government has long shown its disrespect for local government—it has again failed to stop developer-led spot rezoning and continues to allow circumstances in which councils and communities are sidelined from the process. In effect, at any time the council could reject a planning proposal and the developer could then say, "Ninety days have passed. We don't care what the council thinks. We don't care what the community thinks. We'll go straight to the department and get our proposal tapped through." While I expect that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces might have good intentions, he might not be there in a reshuffle. []

In fairness to Minister Stokes—I have welcomed his return to the portfolio—I respect that there will be some hope while he is Minister. I hope he understands that this process could worsen in the future and that it could be revived under a different Minister. Should he not put those protections in place, communities and councils will be subject to the fear that their local environmental plan will be ignored. It is imperative that the Minister not miss this vital opportunity. He has the opportunity to foreshadow amendments to his legislation when he gives his speech in reply or to back his own words from May when he said he wanted to end spot rezoning.

The Minister does not want a future with spot rezoning and I share those thoughts. The best way to do that is to ensure that we make amendments to section 3.32 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act—that is where the pre-gateway process is discussed. We could add a new section that prohibits a Minister from being able to permit a rezoning review that is led by a developer that ignores the council. There are opportunities to amend this legislation with a very simple change to that section. I would support the amendment and I have no doubt the Opposition would support it. We on this side advocated strongly on this issue in the lead-up to the election. We made it very clear.

I acknowledge the then leader, Michael Daley, and former shadow Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. He was firmly of the view that communities need confidence in the planning system. They need assurance that the LEPs that councils put in place after extensive community consultation—that meant something to the community—would be the instrument developers would rely upon when making their applications so that people would not have to worry that a high-rise, or flats of three or four storeys would be built all of a sudden in their street, in a zone that normally would permit only two storeys. These are the sorts of concerns that were raised with me in places such as Telopea, Seven Hills and Oatley.

These concerns have been regularly raised in Liberal-held electorates—in their backyards. People feel that the planning system is all about developers and does not support communities. This is an opportunity. Sadly, I do not believe the Minister will make amendments. I am confident that our shadow Minister for Planning and Better Living in the other place will propose amendments to the bill and I hope there is support for those amendments. The Labor Party will continue to advocate for the end of developer-led spot rezoning. It has to stop. It has caused a great deal of angst in New South Wales communities. There must be confidence in the planning system and the only way to do that is through legislative change.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Ms Felicity Wilson):

I welcome students from Chifley College Senior Campus to the gallery today to observe the Legislative Assembly in action. We are currently considering the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

Ms ROBYN PRESTON (Hawkesbury) (11:15:18):

As the member for Hawkesbury and as a councillor in local government for 11 years it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Much has been said in this debate about the good work done by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017 and the continuation of that work through the bill we are debating today. I will talk more about another achievement of the 2017 amending Act: improved community participation and new tools rolled out in local communities across New South Wales. The first of these is the new community participation plans established by the 2017 amending Act. These plans explain how and when planning authorities will engage the community in plan making and development decisions.

Community participation plans will be based on new community participation principles that are now enshrined in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. They aim for a proactive and transparent approach to engagement and include principles such as recognising the community's right to be informed about planning matters that affect it, providing information in plain accessible language and providing the community with opportunities for early participation in strategic planning. The new provisions also gather the minimum requirement for community consultation into one place, such as minimum exhibition periods for different planning decisions. The plans will need to adopt these minimum requirements and go further by committing to further actions to engage with the community. Community participation plans will need to be completed by the end of the year. Councils in my electorate are working hard to meet this deadline.

The department has prepared its own plan for development decisions that it is responsible for. It has consulted about this draft plan broadly and I understand it is currently readying for launch. To close the consultation loop, decision-makers will be required to prepare a statement of reasons for their decisions. This will help community members see how their views have been taken into account and understand the rationale behind decisions. If, on some occasions, they do not agree with the outcome, it is important that they can understand the process. This statement of reasons will then need to be considered as part of any proposal to modify the development down the track. The bill builds on the important work of the 2017 amending Act and the enhanced community participation measures that it introduced. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms JO HAYLEN (Summer Hill) (11:18:41):

I will speak briefly to the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which follows on from legislation passed by the Parliament in 2017 and makes a number of amendments to further clarify and streamline the functions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. These amendments include ensuring that the numbering and the structure of the Act are consistent with other legislation, allowing minor editorial changes without requiring a further order, clearing up inconsistencies with the public exhibition of environmental impact statements for government activities carried out without planning approval, making the assessment pathway time frame for State infrastructure assessment consistent with State significant development in relation to staged proposals, updating the Act to reflect the introduction of the Crown Land Management Act 2019 and amending environmental planning instruments in accordance with standard local environmental plans.

The amendment that provides that an occupation certificate may be issued for a partially completed building is a particularly interesting provision, given the recent revelations in regard to the building industry and building standards within this State. It is important to note that in the past eight months no fewer than three major residential towers have been evacuated and effectively abandoned due to significant structural and other defects. Apartments at Gadigal Avenue in Zetland were abandoned eight months ago following extensive fire safety and water defects. On 14 June 2019 Mascot Towers was evacuated following widespread cracking in the car park and in many apartments. Residents were left stranded. Some had to move to a makeshift shelter in Town Hall; others had to pay exorbitant prices for hotels or other accommodation to meet the needs of their families. Residents are concerned that each day the value of their property plummets further and further.

Having forked out upwards of a million dollars to buy a home in the first place and looking down the barrel of extraordinary strata repayments to repair damage, can anyone feel safe in the knowledge that their investment will hold its value? This is an anxiety that is being felt in every new building across the city. On Christmas Eve last year owners and tenants of apartments in the $170 million Opal Tower were forced to flee the building due to safety concerns. Rather than celebrating Christmas with their families, residents were forced to sleep in their cars and were afraid for their belongings, their savings and their financial futures. In launching their multimillion‑dollar class action lawsuit against the New South Wales Government in the Supreme Court, the residents' claim states that "Opal Tower was not reasonably fit for occupation".

Understandably, a number of inner west residents in my community have contacted my office to raise concerns about their own buildings or to lament the lack of building standards as they see multistorey developments sprouting up around them, thanks to the Government allowing development to run rampant through our suburbs. In fact, a recent pilot study conducted by Deakin and Griffith universities revealed a staggering 95 per cent of new buildings in New South Wales had at least one defect, with every building having on average 16 defects. These are shocking figures that were revealed in this recent study.

We must not forget that the current debate around building standards takes place against a backdrop of thousands of buildings potentially in need of redress due to fire-prone cladding. I note that the Victorian Government has announced a comprehensive $600 million package to deal with the combustible cladding issue. The New South Wales Government has not announced a similar type of package in response to this crisis. Dr Laura Crommelin at the University of New South Wales City Futures Research Centre notes that Sydney is likely to be the epicentre of a building crisis, given the strength of our recent real estate boom. She said:

We've very much embraced this high-density development model without necessarily having both a workforce and the regulatory system in place that's equipped to manage it properly.

We have seen an unprecedented property boom in New South Wales. Communities across the State, including mine in the inner west, are seeing developers run roughshod over their suburbs. This Government has turned New South Wales into a developers' paradise. High-rise development is being forced on communities through poorly planned priority precincts, changes to strata laws have allowed apartments to be sold out from underneath unwilling owners and our local councils—which often are one of the last obstacles to developers who are planning a development that is not wanted by our communities—have been amalgamated. To make matters worse, we now know that the developments we see across our suburbs may pose a risk to the occupants within them. It is not good enough. The community is deeply concerned that the Government is not doing enough to protect their properties and our suburbs.

In response to the recent evacuations the Premier offered $3 million in interest-free loans to the affected Mascot Towers residents and has announced a package she hopes will stem a looming crisis within the industry. The package includes developing a new compliance regime, enforcing the standards set out in the Building Code of Australia; registering all building practitioners; introducing a new industry-wide principle of duty of care; and appointing a building commissioner to regulate all aspects of the New South Wales building industry. Sadly, the Government has not provided enough detail on the role of the commissioner, there is no clear time frame for the appointment of the commissioner and no associated funding was to be found in the budget handed down last month. Given the extent of this issue and the widespread media coverage of the Opal Tower evacuation eight months ago, clearly the Government has been caught out unprepared.

The bill also represents a lost opportunity in relation to the critical issue of spot rezoning in the planning space. Spot rezoning, which was introduced in 2012, allows developers to override local environmental plans and get approval from the Minister, or one of the Minister's delegates, when a local council knocks back a proposal. Spot rezoning, also known as a pre-gateway or rezoning review, was introduced by the Liberal‑Nationals Government as a developer-friendly backdoor for these processes. It has been a blight on our planning system ever since and is responsible for some of the worst development in my inner west community and across the State. Almost all of the contentious developments that have occurred in my part of Sydney over the past seven years have been a result of spot rezoning. Currently 10 significant spot rezonings are on the books with the Inner West Council. They include 2,600 apartments along Carrington Road, Marrickville—a proposal that has no community support and has generated widespread rallies and opposition.

Labor took a principled and ambitious policy plan to ban spot rezoning to the last election. I was heartened to hear that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Hon. Rob Stokes, was planning to junk the contentious provision. I am impressed that his ambition mirrors ours on this side of the House. He said, "My ambition, and it is a way off, but my ambition is a future where spot rezoning doesn't have a role." The good news for the Minister is that he does not have to wait—he has support from the Opposition to realise his ambition. There is clear support within the Parliament to end spot rezoning and to rebalance the relationship between development and communities in New South Wales. Obviously there has been a battle of wills within the Government but on this side of the House we are ready to see the Minister's ambition realised. The community wants it done. We must end spot rezoning, which is resulting in poorly designed and potentially dangerous buildings that will be there for 50, 60, 70 years. These types of development are diminishing our city. It must change. Overall, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr PETER SIDGREAVES (Camden) (11:27:56):

As the member for Camden, a current Camden councillor—for seven years, I might add—and a former mayor, I am delighted to speak in support of the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The bill picks up on the good work of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2017. One of the key features of the 2017 bill was the focus on strategic planning to better protect community values and guide growth and development. The Government recognises that strategic planning is a critical part of a good planning system; it tells the stories of communities. Since the 2017 bill was introduced all councils across New South Wales have been consulting with their communities to develop local strategic planning statements. In my electorate both Camden and Liverpool councils already have draft local strategic planning statements on exhibition.

Before the planning statement went on exhibition in Camden—where I am a councillor, as I said—an enormous amount of community consultation was had, above and beyond what was required and what would typically have been done. That consultation really benefited the people of Camden, and that can be seen in the local strategic planning statement. Local strategic planning statements set out the 20‑year vision for land use in local government areas. They will identify the special character and values that are to be preserved in a local area and how change will be managed into the future. The local heritage of Camden goes back to 1859. It is very important to preserve items of special character and to capture them in a document that specifies exactly what the community wants.

The statements will shape how development controls in the local environmental plan will evolve over time to meet the community's needs. The statements must identify the planning priorities for an area and explain how they are to be delivered. They must also show how councils will monitor and report on how the priorities are being implemented. The statements will be plain English documents that allow the community to engage with planning for the future of their area. Councils in Greater Sydney are required to have a final version of their local strategic planning statement in place by 31 March 2020. Camden Council—with the help of State government funding to accelerate the local environmental plan review—will well and truly meet that target. Regional councils will be required to have their statements in place shortly after 1 July 2020. Importantly, the local environmental plan will continue to be the main tool that local governments use to deliver their community's plan.

The bill makes a number of minor and consequential amendments to a standard instrument order—the instrument that prescribes the form and content for a local environmental plan. The bill also makes consequential amendments to a range of local environmental plans throughout New South Wales. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the instruments are up to date and reflect broader changes to the planning system so that it can continue to operate efficiently and be clear and easy to navigate. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) (11:32:32):

On behalf of The Greens I address the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. In particular, I acknowledge the work that has gone into the bill. I recognise that a great deal of the bill is uncontroversial and it includes a range of miscellaneous issues that have been identified. But we have heard from members about the terrible omissions from the bill. Considering the dire straits of our planning system and property developments in New South Wales, it is clear that this is a lost opportunity. That can be seen in so many places. Whether it is about environmental standards with the woefully inadequate Building Sustainability Index [BASIX], government intervention in planning decisions in local council communities, the incredible lack of infrastructure support to meet increased development across our communities, design issues or private certification, so much needs to be done to improve our planning system.

I will give members one insight into that. My electorate covers the Inner West Council. I served for 12 years on Leichhardt Municipal Council and was the mayor. We saw the beginning of this process under the worst elements of the former Labor Government, who introduced part 3A and gave the Minister the right pull any planning decision from the control of the local council and let the Minister decide. That was a disgrace. It has been disowned by Labor, as it should have been. It was used as a rallying point by former Premier Barry O'Farrell in the run-up to his election in 2011. Now the use of State significant precincts, State significant developments and unsolicited proposals means that local environmental plans and strategic planning statements are irrelevant, as the member for Camden raised. They are thrown out the window and are not used in a thoughtful way, as one or two areas might be defined in this.

The City of Sydney, which is part of the electorate I represent, now has State planning controls on more than 274 hectares of land. We are not talking about Yass or Goulburn—we are talking about the city of Sydney. It shows exactly how degraded the planning system is when communities develop planning systems with their local council—they go through processes and consult to come up with the planning standards that they want implemented—and then the Government says, "No. Hang on, in this area we are going to make the decision and take it out of your hands. To hell with all the planning controls that the community has developed; we will make the decision." The Government can make the decision for something as small as a multi-user facility on the harbour in my electorate or something as significant as the redevelopment of Waterloo.

We have seen the City of Sydney and other councils stand up against this process that effectively excludes the community from the decision-making. These decisions lack transparency, and they are one of the reasons for the lack of faith in the planning process. When councils say, "Here are our planning standards and our controls that we want to apply to this development", and it then becomes a State significant development, an unsolicited bid or a State significant precinct, confidence in the system is undermined. These are the issues that the Minister needs to be grappling with. Dealing with consequential amendments is fine, but undermining confidence in the planning system through this process—which basically provides a tick for the big end of town and developers— is a major problem. Locals who want to put a dormer window in at their property have to comply with council planning laws, but major developers like Lendlease or Multiplex can get a State significant development approval or a State significant precinct declaration and get planning permission for developments way in excess of what is allowed under local controls.

Interestingly, one of the very few times that a development has been opposed is The Star casino proposal. The developer used a loophole in the now repealed State planning system to request a radical change to a development approval for a 10-storey building. The original development approval was for a 10‑storey hotel and residential tower and the amended development proposal would have increased the height control on that site from the existing 28 metres to 237 metres. I think the City of Sydney is probably the leading council in Australia in terms of development, but in spite of all the work it had done—noting that the Central Sydney Planning Committee has approved billions of dollars worth of development—the casino's owner displayed blatant disregard for the planning framework. The framework controls were developed through extensive community consultation and represent the view of the community. If that development had been given the go-ahead it would have impacted surrounding areas, overshadowed the public domain and changed the way Pyrmont works. Those are the planning issues that the Minister needs to grapple with.

The Minister also needs to grapple with the issue of investment in infrastructure. I recently wrote to the Minister concerning Parramatta council's 2017 estimation of a local public infrastructure shortfall of $230 million. If you look at the Parramatta skyline, you will see that it is full of multimillion dollar high-rise profit boxes. Developers have walked away with millions and millions of dollars but the community has been left short by almost a quarter of a billion dollars in important infrastructure. Why is that? There is no special infrastructure contribution [SIC] in Parramatta, even though the administrator of the amalgamated council introduced a levy to try to fund developments. At the time the developers countered by saying that the State Government would introduce a SIC to fund infrastructure developments. The State Government never introduced a SIC, and so there is a massive shortfall in local public infrastructure.

Then we come to the cheer squad for the development industry, Urban Taskforce. Does anyone take it seriously anymore? It argued for so long to reduce regulation despite buildings falling down and cracking and people being excluded from their properties. The arguments that group is putting forward are once again undermining confidence in the planning system. I turn to the BASIX, which the Minister should be addressing in legislation before the House. BASIX is a positive development that seeks to improve the environmental performance of buildings. But now it has turned into a glorified certification process. It needs to be updated and it needs to be focused on ecological outcomes, rather than getting a certificate. BASIX does not deal with so many of the new technologies that now are available. I urge the Minister to consider reviewing BASIX to make it meet to modern standards.

I turn now to address the issue of private certification. It was the former Labor Government that privatised the certification system so Labor bears some responsibility for much of what has happened. The situation now is that a developer finds a certifier and pays that certifier to certify their development. From my experience on a local council, members of the council knew the certifiers who basically would pass anything and they also knew those who were tough. The developers build relationships with certifiers. Developers are paying certifiers' wages. Our community expects that those certifiers will follow every single rule whereas the developer is pressuring them to approve the development—the very developer who is paying the certifiers' bills. That is an incredible conflict of interest. The Greens believe that the certification process should not be privatised. To ensure that certification is done correctly and in a professional manner, it should reside where the task originally was placed—with local government.

Debate on this legislation gives Parliament an incredible opportunity to address the design question. Many people know that population density is important and in many places high-density development should be supported. We know it is important for high-density development to be done properly to improve communities and to ensure that people are not stuck in their cars, and that the development includes walkable spaces. A major problem is where the multi-unit developments meet the street. I invite the Minister to go down Canterbury Road and many places in Parramatta to see the incredible dislocation between the street and the buildings. There are whole streets full of garbage bins, fire services and driveways. That type of development does not create walkable streets or livable communities; rather, it is the antithesis of building good neighbourhoods.

Part of the problem is that specific planning controls are needed. Whereas it might be good for one developer to have a driveway, garbage bins and fire services at the front of the development facing the street; having 12 developments on a road that has exactly the same design destroys the amenity of the street. There are many places with that type of development where there are no street trees and no grass. All we can see are the services on the street undermining good quality neighbourhoods. So much needs to be done in the planning area and the new Minister has a fantastic opportunity to amend legislation to ensure that infrastructure in our communities is properly funded and that appropriate and good quality development is provided. I live in a three-bedroom house on 147 square metres of land, which is considered to be quite a large block.

The community in which I live is a Victorian-age subdivision in the suburb of Rozelle, which is a dense subdivision—in those communities density can be done well. We can still have multi-unit developments in specific areas but one of the things I noticed recently as a member of a parliamentary inquiry examining the release of new housing lots was that we have miles and miles of 800, 1,100 and 1,200 square metre properties that lock people into car dependence. New South Wales has some of the largest homes in the world. The houses occupy the land from boundary to boundary, are entirely air-conditioned and incredibly environmentally unsustainable, with very few trees and almost no walkable land. We know what people like: They like walkable communities and communities where people can work closely together. I hope the Minister will take the matters I have mentioned on board and I look forward to him addressing those issues.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans):

I welcome to the gallery students from the University of Technology Sydney who are attending for the induction relating to internship at Parliament. I hope they find the debate on planning of interest.

Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN (Goulburn) (11:43:02):

It gives me great pleasure to support the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I am pleased that the member who preceded me in this debate mentioned the Yass Valley. The Yass Valley in the Southern Tablelands is a beautiful place in which to live and visit. It is rich in heritage, culture, food and wines. I am proud to be the local member for that area. Yass has a strong connection to early rural Australia, with agriculture continuing to serve as the pillar of the community. But the business sector is growing and tourism is booming as Yass Valley's historical buildings, its modern food and wine and its thriving arts culture bring in tourists from the rest of the State, country and globe. Yass Valley benefits from sharing its border with our nation's capital, giving its residents the unique opportunity to work and learn in Canberra whilst living in a rural setting. The towns of Yass and Murrumbateman are expected to support the majority of the local government area's growth in the future while the neighbouring villages retain their small village charm and feel.

From Binalong to Wee Jasper, Yass Valley is made up of eight diverse communities that want and need different things. Our local environmental plans are the cornerstone of our councils' local planning. They provide the framework that tells residents, developers, and businesses what should go where and how our land should be used. Local environmental plans are the main planning tool that shape communities and ensure that development is located and scaled appropriately. They should reflect the community's wishes. Local environmental plans are not and should not be treated as static documents that sit on the shelf. They need to be maintained and updated to keep up with legislation and to keep up with the wishes of our community. They should be accurate, modern and current. That is why Yass Valley's local environmental plan is being updated through this bill—to ensure it is up to date and that references to other legislation are accurate and current.

Local environmental plans can be clunky and hard to follow for those of us who do not have planning degrees. They can be full of confusing clauses and schedules, and perplexing provisions and divisions. That is why this Government is working with local councils to plan more strategically and in closer collaboration with communities. So while we are taking the opportunity to update Yass Valley's local environmental plan through this bill, anyone should be able to pick up a document and easily understand what to expect in a given area. Strategic planning is so important to the future of our communities. It will help us ensure that the right development is in the right area and is supported by the right infrastructure. Local residents, businesses and councils know their areas best. They know what makes their area unique and what needs to be maintained as their communities grow and change.

This Government is providing councils with the tools and support to create their own local strategic planning statements. Yass Valley's Local Strategic Planning Statement will build on the groundwork already laid out through the creation of the South East and Tablelands Regional Plan. It will set out the 20-year vision for the area of the council and the community for its eight distinct towns and villages. It will clearly spell out what the community wants, loves and expects for its area and how that can be delivered through planning controls. It will also set out what development is planned, expected and needed and what infrastructure will be required. It will help government make decisions about where to put future schools, hospitals and transport—this will ensure they are located where most needed. Most importantly, it will provide more certainty for everyone involved, reduce the need for spot rezoning and ensure that communities are not caught by surprise.

The planning system is not meant to surprise us; it should not shock us. The planning system should be simple, explanatory and strategic. It should also be current and modern. The amendments in this bill will not transform Yass Valley's Local Environmental Plan. They are minor in nature. They are not visionary or groundbreaking, nor do they represent any community desire. These amendments will ensure consistency and accuracy with existing legislation, but they represent something greater to me. They represent one step, albeit minor, in this Government's path to improving the planning system to ensure clarity, consistency and certainty for the people of New South Wales—and the community of Yass. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Holsworthy) (11:48):

:14 I support the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I thank the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for bringing this bill to the House. The bill seeks to continue modernising our planning system, which we started with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017. It will help to ensure that the new numbering and modernised structure of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is correctly reflected throughout the New South Wales planning system. It will also seek to provide for the continuous improvement of the operation of the planning system by both making some minor amendments to and building upon the 2017 framework. The bill offers a chance to make significant amendments to the environmental planning instruments, which are essential following the instigation of other associated legislation. This includes the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Primary Production and Rural Development) Order 2019.

The bill clarifies how standardised planning instruments operate by authorising guidance and direction in the terms of the standard instrument and allowing editorial changes—such as punctuation errors—to be dealt with more efficiently; confirms that occupation certificates are available for partially completed buildings, consistent with industry practice and in response to stakeholders' calls for greater clarity; clarifies that a concept approval for a State significant infrastructure project can be followed by only one stage of development, aligning with existing concept development application provisions for State significant development; removes an inconsistency regarding the minimum number of days for public exhibition of environmental impact statements; and updates cross-references in environmental planning instruments consequential on the commencement of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 and the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Amendment (Primary Production and Rural Development) Order 2019.

A growing population requires efficient, up-to-date planning legislation to ensure that infrastructure and urban services can be developed in pace with housing developments. In the five years between June 2012 and June 2017 almost 36,000 new dwellings were completed in the central city district, with the majority of development being along public transport corridors. The fact that just under one-third—11,200—of those dwellings were in the Blacktown area illustrates how rapid this change has been. This rapid growth demonstrates why we need efficient local environmental plans [LEPs] and local strategic planning statements [LSPSs]. The local strategic planning statements are a long-term vision for local communities. They were introduced in March 2018 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to ensure that local planning priorities meet the community's needs and deliver key State and regional planning objectives.

The LSPS sets out a 20-year vision for local land use, outlining how future growth and change will be managed, how shared community values will be maintained and enhanced and how to preserve special characteristics that contribute to local identity. The State Government is working with local councils to ensure that each of them develop their draft LSPS in line with key dates to be endorsed by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. It is important to note that an LSPS will inform changes to planning controls in LEPs. Local environmental plans shape our local communities. They inform how local residents can use their land and the land in their neighbourhoods. They ensure developments are of a reasonable scale and located appropriately in our communities. They ensure that development is compatible with the character of surrounding areas and that it does not overwhelm our local communities. They also ensure diversity in housing and land use, from mixed‑use residential to industrial and retail.

I note that Liverpool City Council is finally taking the opportunity to update its local environmental plan after calls from me and many community members concerned with overdevelopment across the local government area. Unfortunately the last LEP was created by the Labor-appointed administrator of the council with little to no community consultation. I cannot find anyone in the area who remembers being consulted. I think the consultation amounted to an ad in the local paper. There were no letterbox drops or any information telling locals what could happen to their area. Many residents who have lived there for 35 to 40 years are upset to see buildings going up and the character of their area changing.

Council has dragged its heels on the issue. It has put local residents, particularly those around the Moorebank area, in a situation where they cannot park in their own streets, privacy has been decimated and communities are being destroyed. I believe that had a strong, community-backed and strategic LEP been put in place previously we might not be seeing inappropriate high-density developments occurring in single-dwelling and family-oriented suburbs such as Holsworthy, Casula and Moorebank. Although I wish it had come sooner, I look forward to seeing a better LEP for our region and sincerely hope that council addresses the density concerns of residents, particularly across the eastern part of Liverpool. To that end, I know the State Government has given the council some funds to help expedite the much-needed process. The bill also provides an amendment to section 5.8 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that allows for the removal of an inconsistency regarding the minimum number of days for public exhibition of environmental impact statements for government activities carried out without planning approval.

Under section 5.8, a minimum period of 30 days currently applies for the exhibition of environmental impact statements. That is inconsistent with the 28-day minimum period provided for in schedule 1, which was inserted into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by the 2017 amending Act and which contains all community participation requirements, including those relating to public exhibition. Importantly, the bill places a large focus on ensuring that community participation principles are utilised when councils are creating community participation plans. The principles provide a practical and clear approach to engagement and will be included in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The principles include recognising the community's right to be informed about planning matters that affect it, providing information in plain, accessible language and providing the community with opportunities to participate early in strategic planning. How wonderful that will be for my local Liverpool community.

The bill also allows for the collation of the minimum requirements for community consultation to be provided in one place, such as the requirements for minimum exhibition periods for differing planning decisions. The community participation plans will need to adopt the minimum requirements and, if a council wishes, it can commit to further actions to engage with the community. Community participation plans will need to be completed by the end of the year. The bill is essential in simplifying the planning process and ensuring that the modernisation and efficiencies introduced in the 2017 amending Act are accurately referenced. It will ensure that references to the planning Act are consistent with other legislation, so development consents granted under the LEP are not invalidated because the numbering does not match up in relation to inserted clauses.

The safe passage of the bill will mean fewer developmental delays due to administrative conflict in legislation references and more efficient interactions with the planning system. The amendments in the bill are not major but they are very important in ensuring that the planning system is clearer and far more efficient and accessible for our local communities and for the people of New South Wales. I again thank the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, his staff and the department for the work they have done in bringing the bill to this place. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (11:57:21):

It gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government in debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. These important changes support the new primary production and rural development planning framework. At the outset I commend Minister Stokes and congratulate him on his appointment as planning Minister for New South Wales. I have had the pleasure of working with the Minister on many projects in the portfolios that he has held, whether it be education or planning. He is a good friend of the Central Coast and it is always a pleasure to have him visit on a regular basis.

I acknowledge the contributions from my Government colleagues representing the electorates of Wollondilly, North Shore, Riverstone, Seven Hills, Hawkesbury, Camden and Goulburn. I also acknowledge my very good friend the member for Tweed and the fantastic contribution from the member for Holsworthy. It goes to show how important the amendments are. We often take for granted the amendments that are made to Acts in this place. I commend the Minister for introducing this amendment bill. As the member for Terrigal, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of the bill.

Primary production is one of the largest industries in New South Wales and is a significant contributor to the State and national economies. We heard the Deputy Premier speak at length yesterday about the importance of primary production in regional New South Wales and we know that it has been tough for a lot of farmers. I note the member for Tweed is in the Chamber. I have had the pleasure of visiting his electorate; it is a lovely place. But we often hear about the green drought, and appearances can be quite deceptive when you are driving around the regions. I recently had the privilege of travelling south to Kiama. It is beautiful countryside but it is also important to be aware that what we see is not always the real situation.

Before 28 February 2019 the planning framework was disjointed and often very confusing—much like the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 before its amendment in 2017. I note that the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has entered the Chamber. As I said before, we have had the privilege of working together in his various portfolios. I congratulate him on his appointment as planning Minister; I think no-one is better suited to take over the portfolio. Like a tractor held together by duct tape and string, the planning requirements for primary production and rural land use were scattered across a range of planning instruments. This made it confusing and meant that our regional landowners had to navigate at least five different State environmental planning policies. That is not ideal for anybody. These are primary producers who should be able to focus on delivering their product and getting it to market.

Primary producers previously had to consult the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, ministerial directions and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to work out the relevant requirements for their development. That is a very convoluted and complicated array of different instruments to have to navigate when realistically they should be able to do the job easily and swiftly and get back to the business of delivering produce and meeting their farming requirements. The new primary production and rural development framework removed unnecessary regulation and brought together the requirements in an elegant and modern way—much like this Minister, who is elegant and modern. It did this in several ways. First, it replaced four of the five existing agricultural State environmental planning policies with the rationally organised and simplified Primary Production and Rural Development State Environmental Planning Policy.

Secondly, it updated the standard instrument to modernise definitions to reflect contemporary practices and emerging innovations in the industry and incorporate a range of new land uses and development controls for aquaculture, rural subdivision and artificial water bodies of a certain size in environmentally sensitive areas into local environmental plans. Thirdly, it updated the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to declare certain artificial water bodies near poultry farms as designated developments and clarify other designated development requirements for the keeping and breeding of horses. Those three factors are now being streamlined under this Minister and this amendment. That is a great outcome for primary producers and those living on the land in regional and rural areas, including the Central Coast. There are many primary producers on the Central Coast, especially on the plateau around Mangrove Mountain, and these assessments will make it a lot easier for them.

To support the new primary production and rural development framework, the bill also updates the standard instrument to include the new land uses introduced by the primary production and rural development package. The bill also makes it clear that aquaculture must be permitted with development consent in the SP1 Special Activities zone, continuing longstanding and important arrangements for this type of development. These changes are not major but are in line with the policy intent of the changes that were made to the framework when it was updated earlier this year. The new primary production and rural development framework is part of this Liberal-Nationals Government's commitment to make the planning system transparent and easy to use. It should be clear and straight forward so that hardworking primary producers in our community can get on with their jobs and spend as little time as possible navigating the planning system.

I commend the Minister for putting this amendment in place. Bills pass through this House on a regular basis and it is great to have a proactive planning Minister and team who are looking at ways to cut red tape and streamline the bureaucracy so that people on the land—who get up before dawn to get on with their job as primary producers in our community—can focus on their real work: delivering primary produce across New South Wales, whether it be to the Tweed, Central Coast, South Coast or Bega. These changes are an added bonus for the people of regional New South Wales. As I said earlier—and the Deputy Premier spoke about this yesterday in question time—our primary producers have been struggling through no fault of their own.

Whilst we wish them well and wish that we were able to make rain for them, they are doing it tough. Anything this Government can do to streamline that service, make it a little easier for them and take a bit of stress out of the process is a good thing. To some this may seem like a minor amendment, but for people navigating the system it is a godsend. It creates an easier and more streamlined process. Once again, this bill is a credit to the Minister and the Planning team. I acknowledge Jonathon Schipp and Kieran Hayden, who played a major part in drafting this amendment. They are the unsung heroes behind the scenes who work constructively with stakeholders on the Government's behalf. I acknowledge also the contribution of Tom Loomes, who has sat in the adviser's area for the entire debate on this bill.

It was a team effort, led by a very good Minister who is absolutely resolute to deliver better reforms and outcomes around the planning instruments in this State. As I said earlier, he is always welcome on the Central Coast. His reform is streamlining the process and making it a lot easier. I thank Jonathon, Kieran and Tom for their work, and I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber for this debate. It is an important issue. Whilst it might seem minor to some, it has major benefits for many people in regional New South Wales, from the Tweed to the South Coast, the Central Coast and everywhere in between. Primary producers will thank the Minister for streamlining this service. I commend the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 to the House.

Mr ROB STOKES (PittwaterMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (12:06:38):

— In reply: I speak in reply to debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I begin by thanking the long list of members who contributed to debate on the bill, including members representing the electorates of Port Stephens, Wollondilly, Wyong, Riverstone, Heffron, North Shore, Granville, Seven Hills, Bankstown, Hawkesbury, Summer Hill, Camden, Balmain, Goulburn, Holsworthy and, last but certainly not least, Terrigal. It is no surprise that so many members sought to participate in this debate as land-use planning and strategic planning affect all our communities and outline what the future opportunities in our communities will be. It is a critical issue for everyone across the State.

The bill seeks to achieve a balance between the interests of private property, broader public interests and the important ideal of securing genuine public participation through the mediation of conflicts over land and its uses, all in pursuit of the goal of sustainable and ecologically sustainable development as it is defined in New South Wales. I thank all those members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. I will now address some of the matters raised during the debate. I note the presence of the member for Port Stephens in the Chamber and thank her for her contribution. She led the debate on this bill for the Opposition. I acknowledge she indicated the Opposition will not oppose the bill and that its contents are largely uncontroversial. I furiously agree with that assessment of the bill. I assure the member and the House that the department briefed Local Government NSW on the contents of the bill and continues to liaise with the organisation on changes to planning legislation that will affect councils.

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wollondilly. He mentioned that the bill will continue the work of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Staged Development Applications) Act 2017 and ensure that the assessment pathway for State significant infrastructure is consistent with the assessment pathway for State significant development. That is part of the way that we are streamlining and rationalising the planning law and making sure that it is consistent and easier to understand. The bill will confirm the policy of the State Government that a concept development application for State significant infrastructure can be followed by a single application for the entire development site.

The member mentioned the importance of local character in the beautiful electorate of Wollondilly—one of the peri‑urban council areas in New South Wales—much of which is undergoing some change. He also mentioned the importance of ensuring that local planning controls and instruments point to the contemporary legislation and regulation in order to make the planning system as efficient as possible. The member spoke about his appreciation and understanding of the importance of the various environments that his community comprises. Wollondilly is at the crux of some of the land use conflicts in this State and the member does an amazing job representing the concerns of his community and mediating some of those conflicts that come along from time to time.

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wyong—another peri‑urban part of New South Wales—who affirmed that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. I thank him for his advocacy for his community, especially with regard to spot rezonings and the application of the affordable housing State environmental planning policy introduced in 2009. As I have recently said, spot rezonings often result in communities being caught by surprise by ad hoc decisions on new developments. I think all members can agree that a better way forward is to change the culture and replace spot rezonings in an orderly fashion with proper strategic planning. Councils are currently setting the strategic direction for their areas, and through this process the need for spot rezonings will naturally diminish. That is certainly the future to which we aspire. I look forward to hearing soon from the member for Wyong about issues in his electorate. I understand my staff have already reached out to the member to see how our office can help with the large number of interesting issues in the Wyong local government area and electorate.

I thank the member for Riverstone for his contribution, in which he rightly pointed out that the amendments proposed by the bill are not major but they are important. The consequential amendments to local environmental plans and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 will improve the clarity and accessibility of the planning system for everyone who uses it. They will allow users to easily navigate between planning instruments and the parent Act and will make sure that those planning instruments are as consistent as possible in the use of provisions. I thank the member for Heffron for his contribution. The member has considerable experience in local government and a passionate interest and great experience in planning. However, there were a number of gaps in his comments. The member talked about building standards; while that is a very important issue for the State, this is a planning bill. Those comments are perhaps left for debate on a bill relating to building standards, which is an area that is capably led by the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation.

The member also talked about amendments that this bill makes to the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (Green Square Town Centre—Stage 2) 2013. Perhaps he did not read the amendments closely; they are purely consequential on the commencement of other legislation—including, for example, the Crown Land Management Act 2016. They simply ensure that the references to legislation are correct. As for the member's concern about population increase in the area and the effect on transport, that issue will be addressed by the Waterloo metro. It is a critical piece of infrastructure that the member should recognise is happening. I thank the member for North Shore for her contribution to today's debate. As she so eloquently raised, the bill will complete the work of the Crown Land Management Act 2016 by making consequential amendments to a range of environmental planning instruments.

Obviously there are close linkages between the Crown Land Management Act and planning legislation. That will ensure that environmental planning instruments contain updated and accurate references back to the Crown Land Management Act 2016, which will improve the efficiency and clarity of the planning system for the people of New South Wales. I thank the member for Granville for her contribution to the debate. I note the member is concerned about community participation in the planning process, and I accept the premise of her concern. Obviously, we are all concerned to ensure that the community is thoroughly involved in making and understanding the decisions that will influence their opportunities in the future.

The 2017 amending Act to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that this Government introduced had a clear focus on community participation and returning powers back to the people of New South Wales. For example, it established community participation plans which returned powers to the community and explained how and when planning authorities will engage the community in plan-making and development decisions. It also established the need for local strategic planning statements which are centred around community participation and set out the 20-year vision for land use in the local government area. As the member for Seven Hills raised, this bill makes necessary changes to the standard instrument. Section 3.20 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act contains the power that allows the Governor to make the standing instrument order and amendments to it. As the member pointed out, this bill amends section 3.20 to include additional provisions that will allow the standard instrument order to operate more efficiently.

I thank the member for Bankstown for her significant contribution as the former shadow Minister for planning, even though it took some time for her to get to the content of the bill. Nevertheless I reiterate that spot rezonings can catch communities by surprise and that strategic planning and the community-led measures that this Government has put in place can deal with that issue; whether that is the community participation plan inserted in the Act as a result of the 2017 amending Act or whether it is the local strategic planning statements that are being developed right now. As I mentioned, councils are currently setting the strategic direction for their areas. Through this process, the need for spot rezonings will naturally diminish in an orderly way. It is important to recognise that one of the key objectives of the planning system is to ensure an orderly process exists for allocating interests in the use of land over time.

I thank the member for Hawkesbury for her contribution to the debate. As the member pointed out, community participation in the planning process is critical to a good, efficient and community‑led planning system. The member has extensive experience with planning issues in the Hawkesbury going back many years. In line with her comments, the bill will align minimum exhibition periods for different community consultation mechanisms, which is important in providing a consistent planning framework. The bill builds on the important work of the 2017 amending Act and enhances community participation measures introduced in that legislation.

The member for Summer Hill is in the Chamber today, and I thank her for her contribution. The member raised important issues with respect to building standards, as did the member for Heffron. As a result of the Lambert inquiry, those issues are the responsibility of the Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation, who is working hard on them and doing an excellent job. I thank the member for Camden for his contribution. The member has lengthy experience in local government and is in a good position to understand the workings and practical implications of planning and its intersection with local government. The member raised the importance of the work of the 2017 amending Act in establishing the need for councils and communities to work together to put in place local strategic planning statements. Local environmental plans will continue to be the principal tool that local governments use to deliver the communities' plans. This bill makes minor amendments to local environmental plans [LEPs] to improve their efficiency.

The member for Balmain is passionate about a whole series of planning issues. He provided a great commentary, particularly on the importance of good design in the planning system. I note that the recently amended Environmental Planning and Assessment Act introduced an objective of good design so that design will take a much more central role in the way we shape communities. I thank the member for Balmain for his support and ask him to take note of the work that the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment is now doing to put design at the centre of planning for communities. The member for Goulburn provided a great contribution, particularly with respect to the township of Yass in her electorate. The Southern Highlands and beyond is a particularly beautiful part of New South Wales, and while the adjustments in this bill to the Yass LEP are minor in nature, they are important in achieving consistency and efficiency of the planning system. They appropriately set out how local heritage can be identified and protected.

The member for Holsworthy made a valid contribution with regard to the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan, and I thank her for her contribution. Blacktown is a burgeoning area that is undergoing significant change as one of the hubs in Sydney's west. This bill is essential to simplify the planning process, and to ensure the modernisation and efficiencies introduced in the 2017 amending Act are accurately referenced. As members would be aware, the bill is about ensuring that references to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and other legislation are consistent across the instrument.

I conclude this part of my speech by thanking the member for Terrigal for his contribution. He had a particular focus on the changes to primary production and the treatment of primary production in the planning system. Primary production is critical to our State's productivity, sustainability and the social cohesion of diverse communities. The member validly pointed out that this Government will do anything it can to assist our farmers. He pointed out that permissive planning frameworks to support primary production could not be more important, particularly in times of drought. He focused particularly on aquaculture issues, which have been important for his coastal electorate, and will be in the future.

I thank all members for their compelling and thoughtful contributions to the debate on the Planning Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2017 marked one of the most extensive changes to the planning framework and law since the introduction of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, more than four decades ago. This bill builds on the important work undertaken in 2017 and continues to tidy up the Act as well as other pieces of legislation and instruments that point to the Act. A number of members have spoken about the need to prevent surprises in the New South Wales planning system, and I understand that the Opposition will move amendments in the other place to limit these surprises that it says will occur by way of spot rezoning.

As planning Minister I am pleased to hear this bipartisan support for strong strategic planning; I believe we need a strong and steady hand to bring certainty to our communities. When this Government introduced the Greater Sydney Commission legislation in 2015 it made an important step towards a strategic planning system. As Minister with responsibility for planning at the time, I was happy to work with the Opposition to ensure that we secured bipartisan commitment to long-term reform because it is important to recognise that, despite the ebb and flow of political fortune in this place, planning stretches out over decades. The processes we agree upon and the strategic vision we set for our community take many decades to come to actuality so it is important, wherever possible, for us to act in a consistent and bipartisan fashion.

I look forward to working with the Opposition again to move even closer to a proactive, principle‑based planning framework. The new local strategic planning statements will help to move toward this vision of a future that many members here are looking forward to. But we also must be careful to not act hastily or reactively. We must instead move decisively and systematically to an even more strategic planning system. As I have mentioned, the objectives of the planning Act are quite clear in relation to the obligation to ensure that we have an orderly system for the use of land and natural resources in this State, so we need to be very careful when considering a significant change from a pattern of reaction that has developed over several decades toward facilitating spot rezonings as the way to get things done. To move that decisively toward a strategic planning system will take a little time and it needs to be done in an orderly and systematic way—certainly not an ad hoc or sudden way.

Since the commencement of the 2017 amending Act some consequential and minor miscellaneous issues were identified across the planning system and this bill seeks to amend those. It will reflect the new numbering and a modernised structure of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 that is properly reflected across the New South Wales planning system, legislation and instruments. In order to keep our legislation modern and current, bills like the one being debated here will be necessary from time to time to tidy up not only the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 but all affiliated, cognate and associated legislation, planning instruments and regulation within the planning system and across the Planning, Industry and Environment cluster more broadly.

In conclusion, as the member for Terrigal did, I too note the contribution of Jonathon Schipp and Kieran Hayden on behalf of the department. I am very fortunate to have a department that is filled with people with considerable expertise. Lawyers within the planning department are some of the finest lawyers I have ever had the opportunity to work with. Frankly, we need them in the planning system because there is a lot of complexity in the dynamic and changing nature of developments being proposed across the State and the implications that they can have for many years to come. I am very grateful to Jonathon and Kieran, and the teams who have worked alongside them in the planning department. I am also very appreciative of all members who have contributed to the debate. As the member for Terrigal did, I also commend my ministerial staff—in particular, Tom Loomes, who has played such an important role in listening to the contributions and responding to members on both sides of this Chamber. I commend this bill to the House.

TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans):

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

Mr ROB STOKES:

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.