Published on: October 2025
Record: HANSARD-1323879322-158079
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025
Second Reading Debate
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr TIM CRAKANTHORP (Newcastle) (19:00:01):
I speak in support of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. There is not a single place in New South Wales that has not been affected by the housing crisis. It is deeply felt in my electorate of Newcastle. The median house price is fast approaching $1 million and getting more and more unaffordable by the day. Meanwhile, the expected waiting time for social housing is five to 10 years, and there has been a 30 per cent increase in people seeking temporary accommodation over the past five years. While tackling the housing crisis requires a whole‑of‑government approach and will not be resolved overnight, our confusing and convoluted planning system is in desperate need of reform. The Minns Labor Government and the planning Minister—who is present at the table, working hard and doing a great job—have accepted that challenge, and this bill is key to meeting our housing supply goals now and into the future.
This legislation modernises the object of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The reform sets out planning priorities in line with current need, focusing on increasing supply, strengthening climate and disaster resilience, protecting our environment and heritage and ensuring high-quality construction and design. The update is well overdue. To deliver this vision, the bill will also legislate the successful Housing Delivery Authority. Since the HDA was established in January of this year, it has had an impact in Newcastle. There are hundreds of homes in the pipeline, as recommended by the HDA. With that protection, we can greatly increase local supply and speed up projects so that new homes are occupied sooner.
The bill cuts red tape and streamlines applications by removing the redundant regional planning panels and expanding the complying development pathway to allow for minor variations. It also introduces a single community participation plan, making it easier for the community to have their say with consistent public exhibition and notification requirements. The bill backs in the Government's other planning reforms with the new targeted assessment process. That will expedite low‑risk developments where a project complies with a specific code such as the NSW Housing Pattern Book, another fantastic initiative for which I applaud the planning Minister. The targeted assessment pathway will free up council resources to focus on more complex development applications and greatly reduce approval times for eligible projects.
The greater Newcastle region is one of the fastest growing areas of New South Wales, with the population expected to grow to almost one million people by 2041. An ABC report from December 2024 forecast that the population of the Newcastle and Cooks Hill area in the city is expected to increase by 33 per cent in the next 10 years. That growth is coming to fruition as I speak, with high density housing projects popping up throughout the council‑identified urban renewal corridor. My community recognises the need for growth. From my discussions with constituents, I am proud to say that Newcastle is, for the most part, a city of yimbys who say, "Yes, in my backyard." I thank the planning Minister for introducing this important and ambitious reform. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MARK HODGES (Castle Hill) (19:03:55):
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. I thank the Minister for his work to introduce this important bill to the House. I note at the outset that the Opposition will support the bill. However, I foreshadow that we will move some amendments. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was introduced to set the structure for the New South Wales planning system. The Act provides the regulatory framework for planning decisions. This bill represents a major reform to the planning laws in our State. It is important because it will modernise the planning system. However, we have to make sure that, with the modernisation, we maintain community trust. Therefore we must consider each reform to assess whether the balance between community, housing and environment is correct.
The Daily Telegraph
Pursuant to the National Housing Accord, the New South Wales Government has committed to delivering 377,000 new well‑located homes by July 2029, as well as affordable homes. There is no doubt that we are in a housing crisis. reported today that the number of houses completed in the first 12 months of the housing accord has plummeted when compared to the previous year. Housing approvals have also dropped. As the Leader of the Opposition stated this morning, the housing crisis has not occurred overnight. The bill is a positive step, but we will need to keep watch to make sure it has the intended results.
I turn to the important amendments. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Schedule 1 [1] amends the objects of the Act. The bill amends the existing objects to place a greater emphasis on the promotion of the supply, delivery and maintenance of housing generally. I agree with those amendments. As the Leader of the Opposition stated, the bill rebalances the planning laws to place housing delivery and economic productivity on the same footing as environmental outcomes. The bill also amends the objective of community participation in relation to planning decisions. The existing Act provides that one of its objects is to provide "increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning decisions". The removal of the word "increased" within the objects may have the unintended result of reducing community participation in environmental planning decisions. I note that the Environmental Defenders Office has flagged a concern that the amendment may weaken community participation.
The bill also amends the Act to include the Housing Development Authority [HDA]. Schedule 1 [16] inserts division 2.3A. The division enshrines the Housing Development Authority in legislation. The HDA was established by a ministerial order on 19 December 2024. It has the status of a panel established by the Minister under the Act. The Minister will understand that there is growing community concern that the three‑person authority has fast‑tracked the approval of more than 86,700 homes, which in some areas has eroded the careful planning decisions made by councils over many years.
The Sydney Morning Herald
On 14 August 2025 quoted the Mayor of the Hills Shire Council to report that the HDA had sped up a potential 5,936 dwellings and buildings of up to 40 storeys, increasing the amount of housing in Castle Hill, Norwest, Rouse Hill and Baulkham Hills. Many members of the community have expressed concern to me that they have purchased homes—and in many instances their families have purchased homes—having regard to the existing character and amenity of the community. The decisions made by the HDA have in some instances eroded the quality and character of our suburbs. However, we must all do our fair share for housing.
I note that the Opposition will move amendments to the bill concerning the HDA. The Opposition will move an amendment to provide for a statutory review of the HDA by a joint standing committee to be held before the end of the housing accord period. The amendment will propose a statutory review every three years. The Opposition will also move an amendment to provide that the Minister give reasons where the Minister deviates from a recommendation of the HDA. The Opposition will also move an amendment to new section 3.22 (1) (c1) proposing that the words "or convenient" be amended to read "or reasonably necessary". It is a sensible amendment.
One of the issues that has been raised is that councils are not able to adjust contribution plans without sufficient notice given as to increased housing arising from decisions made by the HDA. It has been put to me that the HDA approvals should be supported by local infrastructure schemes and, given the short time frame with respect to HDA approvals, it is impossible for councils to adjust their contribution plans. I ask the Minister to ensure that the HDA consults with councils to ensure that an appropriate and fair contribution plan is in place. I add that consultation with councils would improve transparency and go some way to remove any risk of corruption in relation to the HDA process.
The bill also creates the Development Coordination Authority [DCA], defined as the planning secretary. In his second reading speech, the Minister stated that the new authority will centralise the decision‑making process and advice currently referred to multiple State agencies. One question that has not been asked, however, is what will happen if one agency approves a development and another agency does not. What factors will the planning secretary then apply when making a final decision? My office has received correspondence from community members who have expressed concern that the Development Coordination Authority does not appear to be required to give any reason where, for instance, one agency approves a development and another agency does not. To improve accountability, I note that the Opposition will be proposing an amendment so that the Development Coordination Authority also has annual reporting requirements.
The bill proposes to abolish district and regional planning panels, amending division 2.4 of the Act by deleting the existing division and inserting a new division 2.4. The bill also makes various amendments to schedule 2 of the Act, which can be found on pages 31 to 34. There are currently five district planning panels and four regional planning panels. These planning panels deal with developments that are not State significant but have a capital investment value of more than $30 million, or where the development is for certain types of private infrastructure and community facilities where the capital investment value is more than $5 million and the development is for purposes such as affordable housing, childcare centres, community facilities and the like. The abolition of district and regional planning panels will mean that their responsibilities are transferred to local planning panels.
The Minister has not explained how the operation of district and regional planning panels will be managed by local planning panels with respect to the inherent conflict that exists, with local planning panels being required to provide advice on rezonings but also then potentially having to consider rezoning reviews. This transfer of responsibility also shifts the costs from the State to local councils. The Government has not given any indication as to the provision of funding to assist councils with the cost of this additional work. I note that the Opposition will be proposing an amendment to remove the abolition of regional and district planning panels. I also note that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the Opposition is not opposed to the abolition of these planning panels, but further consultation and work is required in that regard.
The bill establishes a single community participation plan that applies to all planning authorities and functions across the State. It also requires the planning secretary to prepare a community participation plan for how and when planning authorities will undertake community participation when exercising relevant planning functions. The Opposition supports the amendment to require the planning secretary to prepare a single participation plan to apply to all planning authorities. Schedule 1 [75] and schedule 2 [18] to the bill amend the existing provisions with respect to complying development certificates.
The bill proposes to insert new section 4.31A to enable the applicant for a complying development certificate or, otherwise, an applicant for the modification of a complying development certificate to apply to the appropriate person for a certificate varying the development standard that applies to the development. "Appropriate person" means the local council or, if another person is prescribed by the regulation, said other person. As no other persons are currently prescribed in the regulation, that provision will apply to local councils. Schedule 2 [18] proposes to insert new section 159A into the regulations.
The bill provides that where the appropriate person has not determined the application for a variation certificate and an application for a complying development certificate within 20 days, or otherwise an application for a variation certificate within 10 days, the appropriate person will be taken to have determined the application by issuing the variation certificate in the form applied for. This short period may, however, have the consequence that the appropriate person may just refuse the variation certificate, although I note the president of Local Government NSW has said that councils will be able to comply with the timetable. It will be interesting to see how that works in practice.
Extension of time
Schedule 1 [68] to the bill proposes to insert new division 4.3A, which has the heading "targeted assessment development". According to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, this new division provides a pathway between complying developments and the full development application process. The process applies where strategic planning and community consultation has already taken place. This new division also provides that a State planning policy may declare a class of development to be a targeted assessment development. []
Before the making of the State planning policy, the Minister is required to publicise the intended effect of the policy and seek and consider public submissions. The bill also provides that where an application for development is made for a targeted assessment development, certain provisions within section 4.15 of the Act must be considered, whilst others must not be considered. I will not go into the particular provisions in detail. Concerns have been raised that the targeted development process may apply to non-residential developments, including mines, large-scale projects and environmentally sensitive projects. I understand that the Government will be proposing amendments to the bill in this regard.
Those who have spoken to me about the bill, some of whom have extensive planning experience over many years, have expressed to me that there are some missed opportunities to improve the system that the Minister may wish to consider. First, it has been put to me that to speed up the State's planning system, public authorities such as council officers should be given the power to provide advice in relation to what an applicant may require to complete a design or proposal to receive an approval. The risks that would exist where a public authority provides advice can be appropriately managed to remove the possibility of any corruption. If the Government is serious about speeding up approvals, processes should be put in place to allow public authorities, such as council planners, to provide such advice. The development application system is far too expensive and there is far too much reliance on consultants with respect to class one and class 10 buildings.
Second, it has been put to me that there needs to be better enforcement powers given to councils and a compliance levy to address the number of complying development certificates that should not have been issued. I am informed that in cases where councils have received a complaint, approximately 70 per cent of the complying development certificates were issued when they should not have been. There are compliance and corruption risks within the existing system that have not been addressed. Third, I note that the member for Kellyville in his contribution suggested that the Minister should consider whether a process whereby a building permit issued pursuant to section 68 of the Local Government Act could be implemented. The same suggestion has been put to me by those who have experience in planning matters. This section could be used for a merit-based building approval process for zoned serviced land as part of an approved precinct plan. The Local Government Act could have a very simple heads of consideration that does not invite the complexity of the development application process. This would certainly speed up housing approvals and assist councils.
I am pleased that the bill has been brought to the House. It will go a long way to speed up the State's housing approvals process and, hopefully, will help members of our society afford homes in the future. I thank the Minister and commend the bill to the House.
Ms LIZA BUTLER (South Coast) (19:16:56):
I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. The bill modernises the State's planning system while maintaining the strongest environmental safeguards in New South Wales. Right now, around 90 per cent of all development applications lodged across our State are for single dwellings or home renovations. These are everyday projects: families building a home, extending a kitchen, adding a granny flat or building a deck. We must speed up those straightforward applications so that planners and councils can concentrate their time and resources on the large, complex developments that truly have the potential to affect our environment, our amenity and the character of our local areas.
This bill is about getting that balance right: faster decisions for low-risk proposals with a stronger focus and scrutiny on high-impact developments. This week, I have spent hours speaking with many South Coast constituents who have raised questions about the bill. I have also had many discussions on it with the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Minister for the Environment. I want to be absolutely clear to the residents of the South Coast that this bill does not weaken environmental protections. In fact, it strengthens them. I know how important that is for the people who live on the South Coast. For the first time, climate change and natural disaster resilience will become formal objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, alongside the conservation of threatened and endangered species and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. This means that every planning decision made under the Act must now consider our changing climate, community safety and the preservation of the State's unique ecosystems.
All developments will still be required to comply with the Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. These laws remain fully in force and unchanged. The Minns Labor Government has also improved the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, strengthening accountability and ensuring that offsetting delivers genuine conservation outcomes. We are now consulting on further reforms to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 to front load biodiversity considerations, identifying high biodiversity value areas early and adopting a whole-of-government nature strategy. That will guide development from the outset, ensuring environmental health and biodiversity are protected across all regions and ecosystems. These reforms represent a major step forward in planning with nature, not against it.
Currently, developments in New South Wales are either classified as complying development or subject to a full merit-based assessment. The bill introduces a third, more practical option: the targeted assessment pathway. This pathway will help bridge the gap between simple and complex proposals but is only available to low-risk, well-considered projects—that is, projects that have already gone through strategic planning and public consultation up‑front. Crucially, this pathway will not apply to large-scale or environmentally complex developments. Projects with significant environmental impacts will go through the full assessment process. Under this pathway, an environmental impact statement or a statement of environmental effects will still be required. Nothing in the bill removes that obligation. Environmental safeguards remain intact.
Some concerns have been expressed about bushfire provisions. I reassure the residents of the South Coast, who know bushfires only too well, that bushfire protections are not being removed; they are being strengthened. Those provisions will now sit under a new climate change and natural hazards State environmental planning policy, aligning how we manage bushfire, flooding and coastal hazards. That will make it easier to keep risk maps and planning controls up to date as our understanding of climate change evolves. Of course, the Rural Fire Service will remain an essential part of the assessment process. Again I will be clear, there will still be a statutory requirement to assess bushfire hazards. That cannot be bypassed.
One of the most frequent questions raised by communities, particularly in regional and coastal areas like mine, is about character. Will local character still matter under this new planning system? The answer is yes, absolutely. If local character is identified and protected in a council's development control plan [DCP], those protections will remain. The bill does not remove or override them. In fact, I encourage Shoalhaven City Council to continue updating and adopting local character statements in its DCP. Our community demands it, and rightly so. Character is what makes our towns and villages distinct. It shapes how we live, how we build and how we connect with the natural environment. This legislation protects that.
Another major reform in the bill is the establishment of the Development Coordination Authority, or DCA. Under the current system, a single development application can be referred to as many as 22 different State agencies, with each giving different and sometimes conflicting advice. The DCA will provide one clear, consolidated response from the State Government. It will remove duplication and reduce delays, and ensure that advice is proportionate to risk, detailed where it needs to be and streamlined where it can be. This is about common sense, consistency and accountability.
The bill also returns decision-making closer to the community. Regional and Sydney planning panels, which were intended to provide independent oversight, have instead become another layer of delay. On average, developments referred to those panels take around 100 days longer to determine. The bill replaces those panels with local planning panels, maintaining independence but removing unnecessary duplication. The local planning panels will be established in regional areas like the South Coast, where panels do not yet exist. They will be made up of representatives nominated by both councils and the planning department, and appointed only by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. These changes will return around 350 development applications a year to local decision-makers, where they can be handled faster, with more transparency and with clearer accountability.
Let me also address community consultation. Public participation will continue. In fact, it will be made fairer and more consistent. At present, there are more than 100 different community participation plans across New South Wales. The bill introduces a single, standardised framework, ensuring that every community has the same opportunity to have their say. Consultation will remain a core part of the planning system, because people must be part of the decisions that shape their neighbourhoods. The bill is about creating a system that is faster, fairer and more focused on outcomes while keeping environment and community protections firmly in place. It strengthens environmental safeguards, retains local character protections and improves consultation, coordination and consistency. The bill does not remove accountability; it restores it. The bill does not weaken the environment; it reinforces it. The bill does not silence the community; it gives the community a stronger, clearer voice. This is a planning system built for the future, one that balances progress with protection, growth with sustainability, and efficiency with fairness. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) (19:25:02):
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. I acknowledge the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces for bringing the bill to the House. Reforming the planning system is never easy, but it is essential if New South Wales is to deliver the homes, infrastructure and communities that its people need. Our State requires a planning framework that is not only faster and more efficient but restores public confidence, removes duplication and fosters genuine collaboration between the Government, councils and industry. The Government says the bill will make the system faster, fairer and modern. That is a worthy ambition. The real test, however, lies not in the title of the bill but in its delivery.
The challenge before us is clear. Housing supply in New South Wales is not keeping pace with demand. Approvals are slowing, costs are rising and too many families are struggling to find or afford a home. The New South Wales Government's own target is for 377,000 new homes to be delivered by 2029. On the present trajectory, the State is significantly behind schedule. This is not a new issue faced by the State over the past decades. The shortfall represents families waiting, communities under pressure and an economy constrained by lack of housing choice. Reform is therefore necessary, but it must be practical and focused on outcomes. The scale of the housing challenge, the pressures on infrastructure and the expectations on councils are all very different now to even 24 months ago.
However, while times have changed, we must acknowledge that these reforms are possible because of the groundwork laid by the former Coalition Government, which built the metros, roads, ferries and trains that opened up new communities. We established the Planning Delivery Unit to fast-track approvals, coordinate agencies and resolve bottlenecks, ensuring that good projects could move from proposal to delivery without unnecessary delay. Through Landcom the Government delivered more than 100,000 homesites across the State, working with councils, the private sector and community housing providers to deliver affordable, sustainable and well‑located housing. Those initiatives proved that a well-coordinated system can deliver real outcomes when agencies share a common goal and a culture of approval.
It is that practical, delivery-focused spirit that must guide this new round of reforms. If the department and the new authorities adopt a mindset—as the Coalition Government did—of "how to approve" not "how to refuse" then these reforms will succeed, as I believe they will. That does not mean lowering standards or silencing communities; it means encouraging problem-solving and cooperation rather than obstruction. Departments and agencies must buy into the attitude of approval that is focused on delivery and guided by a simple test: Does this proposal meet the rules and serve the public interest? We have seen attitudes toward development evolve, particularly among younger generations who value well‑designed density, connected transport and vibrant town centres. It is important to embed within government agencies an attitude of yes, an attitude that sees opportunity and strives to make good projects work.
I know that all too well. The majority of Lane Cove local government area residents now live in medium‑density housing. At the same time, the area was also named the most liveable local government area in Australia. That level of liveability did not happen by chance. It is evidence that density and liveability can exist together when thoughtful planning, genuine community engagement and investment in infrastructure alongside new housing are imposed. Having served as the mayor and as the local member for more than 20 years, I have seen how good planning, undertaken with the community, can create places that people truly love to live in. If the Government can make sure that growth happens the right way by investing in infrastructure and restores faith in the development sector by cracking down on unproven builders, attitudes will change and results will be met.
I refer to the bill to comment on the establishment of the Development Coordination Authority [DCA], which is one of the more promising aspects of the bill. The intention is clear: to create a single, coordinated point of decision-making that cuts through red tape and improves agency cooperation. Its success will depend on how effectively it coordinates across government and how well it wrangles the various departments and authorities to ensure that approvals lead not just to paperwork but to construction commencements. The DCA must oversee projects beyond the development application stage and guide them through to delivery. That may require adjustments to related legislation and regulation to achieve genuine whole-of-government alignment. The Opposition supports that initiative in principle but will seek to ensure that transparency matches authority. Annual public reporting should be mandatory, setting out performance data, time frames and outcomes. A central authority must bring with it clarity. The intention behind the DCA is sound. If managed well, it could become a true delivery body rather than another layer of administration.
Additionally, there has been considerable discussion about the proposal to abolish regional and district planning panels. I remind the House of why they were introduced in the first place. They serve as much-needed anti‑corruption measures, after the consistent failures over many decades. When a planning proposal or rezoning is not supported by a council, who will provide an impartial review? If those panels are removed, the department should undertake independent analysis itself, free from local political pressures and guided by State objectives. That would ensure that decisions remain aligned with strategic objectives rather than political convenience.
Regional plans must be more than aspirational documents. The current plans operate at a very high level and often lack the necessary detail on infrastructure sequencing, funding and delivery. Without clarity on when and where infrastructure will be provided, such plans risk becoming what we once called "motherhood statements", long on vision but short on action. Successful regional planning requires clear identification of infrastructure priorities, realistic time frames and designated delivery responsibilities. Good planning and good infrastructure must proceed together, not separately. At the same time, distinguishing between scales of development through clearer objectives is incredibly sensible. The current Act treats all proposals in largely the same way.
A more proportionate system, as envisaged, could allow straightforward developments to proceed efficiently while ensuring that major projects receive the appropriate level of scrutiny. When the Coalition was in government, it introduced community participation plans to rebuild trust and transparency in the planning process. Over time, at the hands of the current Government, those plans have become inconsistent across councils. The concept of a single statewide framework could restore the consistency that was originally intended. A uniform approach can bring fairness back to community engagement, but consultation must remain meaningful. Reducing public exhibition periods for State significant developments from 28 days to 14 is potentially the wrong signal. Communities need time to review complex proposals and respond thoughtfully. The Opposition will move to restore the 28-day period and to require that participation plans are prescribed in regulation, not left to departmental discretion.
There are several practical issues that the Government should address alongside this reform. One longstanding problem is the inability to use complying development on a site that already has a concept plan approval. That anomaly adds unnecessary time and cost. The Government should use this legislative opportunity to fix that. Another technical point concerns planning proposals that stall after initial approval. The department should have the capacity to assess or re-assess these directly, ensuring that worthy projects are not lost to administrative inertia.
Legislation sets the framework, but culture delivers the outcome. The success of these reforms will depend on whether departments, councils and agencies embrace a genuine mindset of how to approve and not how to refuse. This cannot be written into an Act, but it can be led. Leadership within the department will determine whether the reforms achieve their purpose. A culture focused on enabling responsible, well-designed growth is essential. We must move away from a planning culture of risk aversion and toward one of problem-solving. Culture, more than structure, will determine whether the system truly becomes faster, fairer and modern. Planning is not about process; it is about people. It shapes how we live, where we work and the kinds of communities we leave for the next generation. The bill is an opportunity to fix what has become a cumbersome and inconsistent system.
Extension of time
There are positive steps here: notably, the creation of the Development Coordination Authority and the effort to simplify pathways. But there are also risks: vague objectives, reduced consultation and uncertainty around oversight once regional panels are removed. If implemented carefully, these reforms can help deliver homes faster, improve coordination and rebuild confidence. If done poorly, they will simply replace one set of frustrations with another. The Coalition will work constructively to strengthen this legislation. []
We will support reforms that improve delivery, uphold transparency and respect local communities. The people of New South Wales deserve a planning system that works and that delivers homes and jobs without sacrificing liveability, amenity or accountability. That is the standard that members on both sides of the House will continue to uphold. As a former planning Minister, I put on record my thanks to the Minister, his ministerial staff and his departmental staff who have worked hard to deliver this piece of incredible legislation on planning reform. I commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Scott Farlow in the other place for working collaboratively with the Government to achieve this. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie FieldsMinister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Innovation, Science and Technology, Minister for Building, and Minister for Corrections) (19:36:11):
— I contribute to debate on the Environment Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. As Gough, my political hero—and the hero of all members on this side of the House—would say, the path of reform is always difficult. That is why the work of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and the Minns Labor Government is required to deliver the biggest reform in 50 years to suit the times we are experiencing. My colleagues on both sides of the House have gone through the detail of the bill, and I do not need to repeat that. But it is important to understand that our communities and our challenges have changed, and those changes are significant.
The aim of this planning bill is not just to build more homes but to build a better community and economy for the future. We cannot have a New South Wales economy that is held back by a planning system that has not been reformed. New South Wales has lost 30,000 to 40,000 young people over the past few years. I ask members to think about the impact of that many young people leaving New South Wales who are in the prime of their working lives, starting families and contributing to the economy. They have been lost from the areas where they have grown up and that they have known. Economically, we have lost a significant part of our workforce. The people who look after our kids in childcare centres, teach our kids in schools, look after us at hospitals and keep us safe and healthy make up an important workforce.
This planning reform is about housing, but it is also about building a stronger economy for the future. As part of that, we must think about the social fabric that we are trying to create. Families can no longer afford to live near each other. Grandparents are not able to see their grandkids, except maybe once a year at Christmas. Surely, we can and must do better for them so that they can establish roots—join the local football club and volunteer in local community groups. They cannot do that if they cannot afford to live in certain areas, and they cannot afford to live in certain areas if we do not build enough houses for them.
The planning system is outdated. Every incremental reform is another Sara Lee approach to add a layer to an already complex process. The time is now for us to do significant reform, not incremental reform. We cannot wait any longer. The work of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has tipped the system upside down, shaken it and thrown out the bits that no longer work and are no longer relevant. We must have a modernised system for the modern challenges in the New South Wales economy. We cannot continue to be the second most expensive city in the world while the 800th densest city. No international city is ranked 800th in density. We cannot have that.
That is why we are modernising the system and ensuring that we build around significant public transport infrastructure through the TOD development. The public and the taxpayers have poured in billions to build a wonderful transport infrastructure system. We must create a system to induce people to actually use it, and we must get people off the roads to where they want to go in a much more consistent time frame. Housing is a part of building the economy and ensuring that we reduce the impost on taxpayers as we continue to subsidise public transport—as we should; by its very nature, public transport is subsidised. But it is important to ensure that we create a demand model that allows public transport to work efficiently and at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.
The times have changed. Many people may not be aware of the fact that the household size in New South Wales and Australia has decreased. It has gone from about 2.6 persons per household to about just under 2.5 persons. Now, that is not a big decimal point. Members might say, "What difference does 0.1 make?" It makes a huge difference. In a State of eight million people, an average household size of 2.6 persons equates to just over 3.076 million dwellings, but with an average household size of 2.5 persons, we are talking 3.2 million. Over 100,000 dwellings have been sucked out of the system because there is a reduced average household size.
There are also a range of changes to people's housing preferences, including, for example, working from home. People's working patterns have changed. Therefore, we need to have more dwellings because people want that extra room for that extra office that they will need to work from home. That 0.1 of a decimal change equates to 100,000 dwellings, and those are not growing on trees. They need to be built, and they need to be built quicker. We cannot build houses if the system is prohibitive, prolongs delay and inevitably costs the consumer, only enriching those with vested interests who continue to write reports that are no longer relevant. The social and economic impacts on the people of New South Wales are significant.
Abundance
I was disappointed to hear the contribution from the member for Newtown. The Greens, the supposed party of young people, are denying the very thing that young people want the most: a place to live and call home that is near their local community and near their mum and dad. The Greens are denying them all for the sake of some frivolous argument about nimbyism and about this reform lacking control and oversight. I thought I was hearing a summary of Ezra Klein's from the member. We cannot continue to have a system that is not working. That is fundamentally why the reforms are being introduced and why they are so important.
The current system is not working. You can see that in the evidence. People cannot afford to live in this State. They cannot afford to live close to their local communities. We have to reform the system—and not by tinkering around the edges. We have to drive a truck through the issue, because the system is not helping the very people we have been elected to advocate for and deliver a better future for. The themes of the reforms include modernising the system and, obviously, making sure that we take a risk‑based approach. There is no use spending the same amount of time on a small development as a large development. That does not make sense. It is wasted time and effort, and causes delays. Delays mean money and greater costs, especially for those who want to get into a home.
We cannot wait any longer. The work of the Government in the housing space has been a holistic reduction of red tape, because you cannot build a house if you cannot get it approved. It should be approved quickly and built quickly and to a high building standard, which is the work of the Building Commission. The Government is also addressing how people live in their homes through rental reform and strata reform. Those things are working together. That is what the Minns Labor Government is doing. I commend the work of the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. It is not minor reform; it is structural and cultural. It is a mindset change that the people of New South Wales need because we cannot continue to do things the way we have been doing them. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (19:44:21):
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. High-density living can provide a healthy, connected, lively and sustainable lifestyle. The inner city is one of the most densely populated regions in the country and one of the most attractive and popular places to live. The streets around apartments in Potts Point, Elizabeth Bay, Pyrmont, Surry Hills and Darlinghurst are active and exciting. Residents sit outdoors at cafes, congregate to chat on corners, walk to do their shopping or go to the gym. On a sunny day the parks are filled with people soaking up the rays while socialising with others. The Government wants to encourage more high‑density communities like those to help improve housing affordability. The higher the density, the more homes our cities can support and the more people benefiting from service and infrastructure delivery.
As we embark on building more housing and increasing densities, we need to maintain the important planning principles that have delivered good density in the inner city—principles that protect affordability, amenity, health, safety and community. That does not mean giving developers what they want. Many are driven by profit and will build as high and wide with as many car spaces as possible for the most lucrative market. Recent examples in Sydney show how developers can erode housing supply and affordability. Six development proposals in Potts Point, Elizabeth Bay and Rushcutters Bay will see a net loss of 101 affordable homes because those developers are demolishing older blocks with studio and one-bedroom units to build small numbers of large luxury apartments.
Boarding houses are being converted into lavish villas, with developers claiming boarding houses are too expensive to maintain only months after purchasing them. These opulent homes often provide second, third or fourth residences for the ultra-wealthy or expensive short‑term holiday accommodation, with low-income earners, renters, first home buyers and essential workers left behind as a result. It is up to the planning system to ensure safe, liveable and affordable homes in the neighbourhoods that people want to live in. In the current affordable housing crisis, we have an opportunity to increase urban density as more people are now willing to live in apartments—encouraged by the great urban density work done by the City of Sydney. We can do that well if the planning system prioritises well-located, healthy, affordable homes in liveable communities and sustainable environments.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 aims to facilitate high density housing through quicker approval processes. While approvals do not guarantee construction, as they do not address complex barriers like labour shortages, rising costs and withdrawn foreign investment, I acknowledge that they are the first step to housing delivery and an important part of the solution. The bill will make the Housing Delivery Authority [HDA] permanent. The HDA has been accepting expressions of interest from developers and recommending projects to the Minister for State significant development since late last year.
The State significant pathway can unlock development uplift over and above environmental planning instrument controls. The aim is to expedite housing, but we need to impose guardrails to prevent the HDA process from slowing housing delivery and reducing affordability. There is a legitimate concern that the HDA process is overriding years of strategic planning and reducing affordable housing contributions that deliver community housing for low‑income earners in perpetuity. I request that the Minister tell the House in his reply speech how he will ensure that the process does not obstruct good density and long‑term housing affordability.
In the inner city, developers are submitting expressions of interest with the HDA for projects that have already received council approval at maximum density. Those are high density projects that could start immediately but are being delayed by the hope of added height and floor space. Areas like Pyrmont, Ultimo, central Sydney and Green Square have been subject to extensive master planning work to set appropriate controls for high density in partnership with the State Government and do not require a new pathway to deliver housing. Some developers are seeking to use the HDA to try to avoid paying affordable housing contributions set out in local environmental plans. The City of Sydney's successful affordable housing scheme has helped secure over 2,000 affordable homes, all in perpetuity and all rented at a maximum of 30 per cent of household income, and community housing providers are planning for the expected additional funding.
The HDA is not meant to be a pathway to stall the housing progress of good councils like the City of Sydney. It should not be recommending projects in Green Square, Central Sydney and Pyrmont-Ultimo for State significant development, nor should it allow developers to bypass affordable housing contributions if there is an existing approval for housing delivery that would help deliver affordable housing through a housing affordability contribution, or if land is excluded by an environmental planning instrument from the operation of the infill housing part of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021. If land is subject to a master plan agreed to between the State and local governments, the HDA should not recommend such a project for State significant development.
It is important that the HDA pathway is not used solely to get uplift on paper for an increase in land value for sale. Any change to height and floor space controls for a site must expire if the project is not delivered, with the original local environmental plan controls reinstated. I ask the Minister to outline how the Government will safeguard the HDA pathway against value grabs. The bill would allow for expedited rezonings where the HDA considers it necessary or convenient, bypassing the normal public exhibition process. It is difficult to consider circumstances where it will not be convenient, and safeguards are needed to limit use of the provision. I understand the Opposition will move an amendment at the consideration in detail stage to replace "convenient" with "reasonably necessary", which I support.
The Housing Delivery Authority was introduced as a temporary response to the housing affordability crisis. Given the ability of the HDA to override important strategic planning principles that support good development and community input, its continuation should be reliant on whether it is still needed and meeting its objectives of increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability. I will support the Opposition's amendment to the bill to provide for a committee inquiry in three years. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to ensure that the terms of reference cover housing delivery and housing affordability. The provisions in the bill reach beyond housing and affect planning assessments for projects like coalmines, critical minerals and renewables. The community is quite alarmed that the changes could undermine the protections we need to deal with climate change and conserve rapidly declining biodiversity.
The Government will move amendments to the bill to ensure that targeted development assessment only applies to housing, and I welcome that change. I joined with environment groups to advocate for that. But I do not support the extension of the Development Coordination Authority [DCA] to mining. The DCA makes sense in the urban housing context, where multiple agency approvals can slow down the delivery of homes and impacts are calculable. Both landowners and consent authorities have been calling for improved efficiency and coordination. But in the context of mines, where lasting environmental impacts affect generations through pollution, lost habitat, water contamination, dam destruction and greenhouse gas emissions, there is no justification to bypass independent oversight. Those huge projects over expanded land masses take decades to rehabilitate and emit tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Extension of time
Most mine expansions bypass the independent planning panel because they are lodged as modifications. I call on the Government to subject them to approvals from independent agencies, including the environment department and Dams Safety NSW, or refer them to the Independent Planning Commission. A new provision in the regulations to prevent consent authorities from considering the impacts of a development that would form part of a different development application risks preventing projects from ever being assessed holistically or for their cumulative impacts. Mining projects have many features like power transmission lines and massive pits that are evaluated in multiple development applications. In the case of fossil fuels, mining projects cause significant downstream greenhouse gas emissions that impact local communities for generations. []
The New South Wales Court of Appeal clarified in the Bingman case that the impacts of the whole project must be considered in each DA. The Mount Pleasant case clarified that climate impacts on the local community must be considered. The proposed regulation will undermine the important community protections achieved in these cases and introduce uncertainty that will be subject to litigation. Restricting impact assessments only to significant impacts will also create uncertainty in the planning system. Case law has allowed consent authorities to exercise discretion on what impacts are relevant, weighing up the various factors to protect communities. The bill does not define "significant", and it will likely be different in different circumstances, encouraging litigation from proponents and communities.
The regulations will be able to declare what factors must and must not be considered when consent authorities evaluate development proposals, opening the door for intense lobbying and corruption risks by proponents. The need for that power has not been justified. I ask the Minister to explain it in his speech in reply. The objects of the Act have been watered down by the bill. They include important factors in applying and interpreting the Act by consent authorities, proponents and the courts, and have provided a basis for existing case law. Together with my colleague the member for Pittwater, I will move amendments to restore to the objects of the Act the protection of the environment, the protection of the health and safety of occupants of homes, and the proper management, development and conservation of the State's resources.
I have outlined those concerns with the Minister, and I thank him and his team for their ongoing dialogue to address them. I thank City of Sydney council staff for their detailed approach and productive advocacy. I acknowledge that the Government has made housing delivery a priority. It is fully focused on that, as this bill demonstrates. A few crossbench colleagues and I are taking a leap of faith in supporting the bill, but we respect the Government's mandate. We will work with the Government to ensure the HDA is successful in its delivery of housing and, importantly, affordable housing. I acknowledge the multi‑partisan approach taken by the Opposition. The contribution to debate by the Leader of the Opposition was very welcome, given the tone of politics in New South Wales. I recognise the Hon. Scott Farlow for his collaborative role in working with me and others on amendments to the bill.
I acknowledge the Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, who rightly has significant concerns about this legislation. She and the City of Sydney have worked tirelessly to deliver affordable housing in strategically planned communities with density. The clarifications sought from the Minister are largely to ensure that the legislation does not unwind or negatively impact on the essential work done by the City of Sydney to deliver well‑located, affordable homes. Housing and climate change are the biggest challenges facing the community in 2025, as well as future generations, and the planning system needs to be at the forefront of solutions. That is why I support the bill. I will monitor its outcomes closely and push to strengthen protections for community input, neighbourhood amenity and environmental protections, should there be any unintended consequences.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (19:57:39):
I make a short contribution in support of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. When the Act was introduced in 1979, it was landmark legislation—a trailblazer. It really was the first of its kind, not just for New South Wales but also for many jurisdictions. It was the first time in this State that environmental protection, public participation and orderly development were written into law, and it gave the community a voice and built accountability into planning decisions. It was definitely—this is not a word that is normally used in relation to policy, bills and legislation—revolutionary at the time. But after half a century, the Act has become tangled in layers of process, duplication and delay.
Abundance
All members in this place have been contacted by someone with a development application [DA] or some other application that has been bogged down by confusing and contradictory processes. Those people are just trying to build something for the good of themselves or the community. What once empowered communities now paralyses them. Projects that could deliver homes, jobs and climate solutions are now lost in an administrative maze. Those who consider themselves policy wonks in this Parliament and in Canberra have no doubt heard of the book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. It gets spoken about a lot, and I recommend it to all members; it is a very good book.
The authors talk about the many checks and balances that were created by a bunch of different movements, including the environmental movement, through the '70s and '80s that were designed to curb the excess of a free market in the United States to stop things like overdevelopment and pollution. It was a very successful movement, and it meant that legislation and agencies curbed pretty outrageous examples of overdevelopment and pollution. They talk about the fact that that movement and those pieces of legislation and agencies have probably been too successful, and we now find planning and other parts of the government apparatus bogged down in bureaucracy, with too many checks and balances and contradictory advice. While that book focuses on the United States, I think the existing Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is a perfect example of that effect in Australia.
Abundance
We face different problems to what was faced in the '70s and '80s. We now need to build homes for families, infrastructure for growth and renewable energy for our future. We face a different set of problems and therefore we need a different set of solutions. The problem is that the planning system still treats every project as a potential threat rather than an opportunity to create a more successful, sustainable State. An example that I like to cite quite often from is that of a recent incident in Philadelphia when a truck full of thousands of gallons of petrol hit a pylon on the I-95, which is one of the main interstate highways through Philadelphia. The truck exploded and pretty much destroyed a bridge, cutting off a major transport route in one of the biggest cities in the United States. The newly elected Governor of Philadelphia, Josh Shapiro, promised a quick rebuild and, with his transport secretary, Michael Carroll, used emergency powers to suspend the usual process of red tape, which meant the bridge would have taken four years to rebuild. They bypassed duplicate approvals, authorised night work and allowed engineers to act decisively.
Two teams were already working near the incident on some maintenance and repairs, and they gave them the contracts. They did not go out to tender, did not get three quotes, did not do an assessment and did not score it. They basically said, "You guys have the job. Get on with it." The transport secretary was checking out the site a few days in and he saw a bunch of workers with a ratchet unscrewing road signs. He said, "Get the angle grinder out and chop the road signs down. Let's get on with this." They rebuilt the entire bridge and opened it within 12 days. I am not suggesting New South Wales should take that kind of approach, but it shows we can build things quickly and that, more often than not, bureaucracy, red tape and duplication slow down the process. I am not suggesting we do that, unless we are in an emergency. When people say, "We used to build things in this country and it used to take X amount of time," if Philadelphia can do that then we can do things like that in this State should the need arise. It shows that the main weight and anchor on those kinds of things is the system of bureaucracy we have constructed.
I will talk about two specific areas of the bill. The first is that the bill modernises the objects of the Act. It does that by changing the focus and ensuring that in the twenty-first century we are prioritising housing supply, productivity and climate change, and making them central to planning decisions. Protecting the environment today means building smarter, compact, energy-efficient, low-emission communities close to where people work, learn and live. Sustainability and housing are not opposing goals; they are complementary and depend on each other. The Leppington town centre is currently under assessment, and I would love to see that be a prime example of this bill should it pass and should things come out of the ground there.
Modernising the Act also means removing duplication and addressing outdated approvals. Members have spoken about zombie applications that linger for years without progress. I have spoken about a zombie development approval in Prestons, which sat dormant for five years. Just before the clock on it ticked over, the proponent subdivided the plot. There are three little cul-de-sacs and, 18 months later, there is still not a house on them. I do not know what is happening with that, but it is a prime example of the issues with the system. The bill ensures that development consents either proceed or are brought to a close, bringing clarity to the system.
The second area of the bill I will talk about is the Development Coordination Authority [DCA]. Members are no doubt aware that my electorate is adjacent to the Western Sydney airport and the aerotropolis is next door as well. In that area, and around my area, there are significant amounts of investment. All too often, people come to see me who are frustrated about how difficult the system is. There could be billions and billions of dollars of investment in my region. Those people want to bring jobs and economic activity and improve amenity, but the current system is too frustrating. It is a great loss whenever people walk away from not just my area but the State, and even the nation, and take their investment dollars elsewhere because the planning system is too much to deal with. The DCA will effectively seek to bring all those State agencies that applications are referred to into one place. The result will be consistent, quick and efficient decisions. Prior to my time in Parliament, I was a councillor on Liverpool City Council. I saw the frustrating effect of waiting for agencies. I will not name them. There were issues around flood evacuation, bushfire risk in places where bush no longer exists—
Mr Paul Scully:
It's on a map though.
Mr NATHAN HAGARTY:Extension of time
Yes, it is still on the map. []
There is no more perfect example of bushfire risk than the suburb of Austral. Four or five years ago, Austral had thick and dense bush. Now it is effectively a developed suburb on the fringe of Sydney, but applicants are still required to do bushfire assessments, and consultants in that area are making dollars hand over fist when they should not be because there is no bush there. Hopefully, the bill fixes some of those kinds of problems. The bill is not deregulation as some have framed it; it is better, smarter regulation. It means that planners can make decisions with confidence, knowing the advice reflects a whole-of-government position. It also means families waiting for homes and businesses that are waiting for approvals are not left stuck in limbo while agencies debate amongst themselves or sometimes do not even bother debating and have such a risk-averse attitude and culture that they sit on things and hope they will go away.
The reform has broad support across the sector. The Property Council calls it essential to giving investors certainty. The Planning Institute supports the bill, saying that it ensures planners can make decisions backed by a single government position. The good eggs at Local Government NSW—and I am proud to say that I was once the treasurer of the organisation—will step up in relation to the DCA, acting as a clearing house for government concurrences and cut years of delay that have frustrated councils and communities alike.
Abundance
In closing, the 1979 Act was built for a world of paper file and typewriters. The world of 2025 demands digital approvals, proportionate assessment and decisions made at the speed of modern life while also addressing the issues facing modern life, such as the housing crisis and renewable energy. The bill honours the spirit of the original Act while freeing it from the weight of its own success, much in the spirit of the book I spoke about earlier, , which is a great book I encourage members to read. The bill ensures that environmental responsibility and economic progress can work hand in hand to build a fairer, greener and more productive New South Wales. I also thank the Minister and the secretary, with whom I had the pleasure of working in a previous iteration, for their fantastic work. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms JACQUI SCRUBY (Pittwater) (20:10:34):
I speak in debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. The bill seeks to address the housing crisis and, as stated by the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, "approve houses and build them as quickly as possible" by streamlining and creating efficiencies. It is acknowledged that we are in a housing crisis, and all three levels of government have made a commitment to address it through the National Housing Accord and its targets, aiming to deliver 1.2 million new homes by 2029, including 5,900 in the Northern Beaches local government area [LGA], which includes the electorate of Pittwater. The Northern Beaches Council has a local housing strategy to deliver those homes. We have had significant development in pockets such as Warriewood in Pittwater, with major developments also set for areas like Frenchs Forest and Brookvale in the south of the LGA.
The bill before us today represents the biggest reform to the planning system in 50 years. Councils like the Northern Beaches Council have spent years and significant resources developing harmonised local environment plans through extensive community consultation. I fear that this bill undermines some of that work by transferring some power away from councils and their communities to central authorities. I am very conscious that this bill has not gone through a thorough consultation or a committee inquiry, has been worked on with the Opposition and is now being rushed through this House.
Together with many in my community, I have serious concerns that streamlining and efficiency measures to deliver rapid housing will come at the cost of what my community values very highly: community voice in planning decisions; community-led local strategic planning by council; strategic planning for precincts and for Sydney more broadly; developer respect for compliance with local planning controls, whether they be local environment plans, development control plans or Pittwater's tree canopy strategy; the protection of the environment, biodiversity and conservation zones; infrastructure before development, whether that be roads, water connections, sewerage, sports fields, civic buildings and schools; sustainable development; and not building in disaster zones or areas at risk of being disaster zones, whether that be bushfire areas or flood-prone areas.
In the scheme of things, I recognise that the concept of proportionality is inherent in the bill. Some of our concerns may seem small, like setbacks that preserve streetscapes and neighbourhood character, amenity standards, access to sunlight, and privacy, all measures that protect the enjoyment of homes and the mental wellbeing of residents. But to residents—some of whom have contacted me—they impact on lifestyle and are very important. We have seen the erosion of community planning over time, from the removal of elected councillors from local planning decisions—which has had benefits as well—to the move to private certifiers, increasing the level of conflict of interest and, arguably, leading to adverse outcomes. We saw the introduction of part 3A and its corruption risk, which ultimately lost the support of the public and was overturned. Despite the rhetoric that this bill is different from part 3A and captures the best intentions of the New South Wales Government and the Opposition to deliver housing, corruption and politicisation risks may come from the consolidation of power and the removal of oversight and transparency. Ultimately, in the long term, it risks undermining community confidence in our planning system.
This legislation may be well-intentioned, but, in its current form, it will have consequences that even the strongest advocates for faster housing should pause to consider. It is radically shifting planning decisions away from local government and towards blanket statewide and State-led planning, all done in a relative vacuum of strategic planning, not only at the local level but also for our cities. I note the removal of strategic plans in recent years, such as the Six Cities strategy. I appreciate that the planning system is overly complex, full of red tape and cumbersome, and does need streamlining. In theory, the new Development Coordination Authority is attractive—a one-stop shop interacting with agencies and departments. In reality, it consolidates power without transparency, which even local governments and Local Government NSW have raised concerns about. The authority is one person: the planning secretary. There is no clear transparency as to how final decisions are made, and those decisions may be conflicting, complex and hugely significant, particularly for issues like bushfire risk.
The bill also enshrines the Housing Delivery Authority for major developments, where developers can have significant, ready-to-build developments approved—developments which are big and impactful—with no requirement to consider local planning controls. The new authority has only three decision-makers deciding on major developments. To date, 75 per cent of those developments have concurrent rezoning, undertaken with no strategic planning and without the voice of local government or its controls required to be considered. I understand that amendments have been foreshadowed to the bill in that regard, to ensure that the function of those authorities is subject to future scrutiny through a committee process. I indicate that I will support those amendments.
Under this bill, complying development certificate processes will be expanded, enabling developments and variations to follow a CDC process and be approved in 20 days without necessarily the scrutiny of development applications [DAs]. My community will be concerned about the watering down and waving through of variations to local planning controls. Additionally, it is not clear what will be considered as minor variations and what those thresholds will be. I note that Local Government NSW has indicated that local government would like to be involved in understanding and contributing to what those thresholds may be.
Councils will be under increased pressure to assess applications within the new time frames—as fast as 10 to 20 days—or face automatic approvals. The bill also introduces the targeted assessment process, which will front-end some approvals, including environmental approvals based on State environmental planning policy [SEPP] processes. We do not necessarily know what they are currently, recognising that the Parliament will not have the ability to scrutinise or reform them. There is no guarantee that local government will be involved in the development of those SEPPs and a high likelihood that those SEPPs could compromise local environmental concerns, which are hugely significant for my electorate and for what my community cares about.
The Government has not made clear what it intends to turn on under the new targeted assessment process. There are no guarantees that environmental factors, site suitability or public interest will continue to be considered in those pathways. Again, Local Government NSW is specifically asking for the establishment of an implementation panel, similar to what was established for food organics and garden organics, so that it can be consulted on those front-end assessments. Turning to the low- and mid-rise policy, residents in the declared low‑ to mid-rise areas on the northern beaches in my electorate are already struggling with the impacts of developments—for instance, Golf Avenue, Darley Street and other areas already subject to DAs. For them, it is inconceivable that if a pattern book design for a four- to six-storey building was followed, they could potentially be subject to the CDC pathway. There would be no way to put any brakes on those types of development.
The other thing I wish to mention are the environmental considerations. I have strong concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the bill. Those considerations have been integrated into the planning scheme for good reason over a long time, with fights fought by those before me. It is of significant concern that this legislation dilutes those environmental considerations in multiple areas of the bill, including the very objects of the bill. In Pittwater we have high biodiversity, with homes amongst trees providing biodiversity corridors for vast amounts of fauna. People in Pittwater want to fiercely protect this biodiversity and biodiversity like it across New South Wales. Tree canopy policies and environmental protections are not abstract concerns. They are integral to a community and its identity and amenity, not just in my community but across our State. It is therefore deeply concerning that this legislation potentially dilutes environmental considerations across multiple areas—patently, in the very objects of the bill itself. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to the objects of the Act to protect the environment.
Extension of time
I know others have also mentioned bushfire risk. With regard to the new objects of the Act in the bill, I welcome the new object of promoting climate resilience and the recognition of climate impacts in the objects of the Act. My electorate faces high bushfire, flooding and coastal risks. We already see the consequences of soaring insurance costs, so resilience is welcome. I also note that there are concerns about the role of bushfire considerations. I understand the member for Wakehurst will be proposing amendments in regard to that. The other serious concern that other members have brought up is that the bill will not be limited to housing. []
Despite Government assurances, nothing in the bill currently limits the use to housing. Legal experts and environmental organisations such as the Environmental Defenders Office, Lock the Gate and Nature Conservation Council of NSW warn the same mechanisms could be applied to larger approvals and developments such as coal mines, industrial projects or renewables projects, risking the exclusion of environmental impacts entirely from consideration if dictated by the regulations. That would be disastrous. It would also undermine recent case law that ensures that climate change impacts on communities from those types of developments are considered. However, I understand that amendments may be moved to ensure the targeted assessment pathway process provisions are limited to housing.
I also mention concerns about cost-shifting at a time when people are struggling with rate rises. While the bill may reduce the number of development applications, it may increase the burden of councils in other ways through tight deadlines, new planning panel requirements and resource pressures. For instance, even with State significant development, the use of local government staff is effectively free resourcing. It often takes weeks to assess an environmental impact statement. Councils are missing out on revenue for developments that are taken through pathways other than development applications. There are too many restrictions on current development contributions. They should be broadened to include community centres and other civic works that councils want to provide as we increase our housing in certain areas.
Additionally, the Government needs more investment in infrastructure, roads and car parks—the list goes on. Even in my electorate, we are experiencing gridlock, roads that are flooded and bottlenecked, and buses that are not turning up. With growth, we need infrastructure to come. I note the sensible changes to the process for the Land and Environment Court, particularly by virtue of the extension of the deemed refusal period to determination. I note those changes reflect a motion passed recently by my own Northern Beaches Council.
I comment briefly on the statewide consultation strategy that is to be developed. As a community Independent, I believe in local voices shaping local outcomes, contributing to their democracy—most importantly through the co-creation of the environment they live in. Statewide consultation standards in the context of accelerating housing will inevitably lower the bar, replacing deep community participation. I have already been lobbied, even before this legislation came to the House, by various resident groups to amend the legislation to elevate community voice, particularly in the Land and Environment Court, and I know that they categorically will reject any further erosion of their engagement.
We must also acknowledge that there are issues other than our planning scheme that are holding up housing delivery. Whilst this bill turns on the tap for developers, there is a chance that water just will not come out. Construction costs are up, we have severe skilled labour shortages and subcontractor insolvencies, all of which stand in the way of housing. In my electorate, we are seeing older, small apartments make way for luxury apartments with fewer residents and less housing—a perverse outcome when we are seeking more housing. My community is not anti-housing and we have some wonderful new developments in our area. The bill brings efficiency to accelerate housing but potentially takes away too much—the community voice, environmental protection and council-led planning—which risks corruption and windfall financial gains. Housing supply is critical, but it must be achieved responsibly with transparency and community input while protecting our natural environment, and by streamlining council processes rather than overruling those with State ones. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms FELICITY WILSON (North Shore) (20:23:45):
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. The Opposition has long championed the need to address the housing crisis here in New South Wales—a crisis founded in insufficient housing supply and record unaffordability. It is timely that today's housing accord figures demonstrate just how badly the New South Wales Labor Government is failing New South Wales in delivering on housing supply. Not only is it drastically behind the year-one and five-year targets; completions have gone backwards since last year. Part of addressing housing supply and affordability is planning reform. We support changes that improve our planning system to ensure we can build more quality homes, quickly. However, fast must never mean careless.
Reform must balance speed with transparency, community voice, environmental responsibility and proper local investment. The bill contains a number of important planning reforms, but it has also raised significant concerns about the continued erosion of community voice, which is why we are proposing a range of amendments to ensure that the community is preserved in planning decisions. What makes the villages, CBDs and towns across New South Wales the places that we choose to call home will be different in each locale. People in my community live in one of the most densely populated areas of Australia. North Sydney local government area [LGA] is the third most densely populated council area in New South Wales, with Mosman and Lane Cove fifteenth and sixteenth respectively—all of which I represent in this Parliament.
The average population density across Greater Sydney is just under 1,000 residents per square kilometre. In North Sydney, we have 5,948 residents per square kilometre. It makes us vibrant, but our liveability depends on ensuring we have open space to balance the proportion of apartment living and the road and public transport infrastructure to get us where we need to be, particularly when all the roads in and out of the Sydney CBD bring hundreds of thousands of people through our streets every day. We need investment in public education so our kids get the best start in life and access to the health care, aged care and childcare that we rely on. This Government has failed to invest in the infrastructure that my community or that any community needs, especially while expecting massive population growth.
Around 50 per cent of our community rents, at some of the highest rents in the country, and our homes are some of the most expensive to buy if you can afford to get onto the housing ladder. We do not need a housing policy that makes it even harder to afford to live in a community like mine. The Opposition amendments are therefore designed to make the planning system fairer, faster and more transparent while preserving essential community safeguards. In my electorate of North Shore, planning and development are not abstract issues—they directly affect the daily lives of my constituents. Residents are deeply concerned about the erosion of public consultation and local voices in planning decisions; the centralisation of decision-making powers into a single pathway, which risks sidelining expert and community input; and the potential loss of important environmental and bushfire safety assessments, especially in an area vulnerable to climate risks.
I have received hundreds of emails and heard from many dozens of locals in my regular mobile offices, urging me to protect what residents value most: our community character and our green spaces and, most importantly, the right to be heard. A central tenet of the planning system is community voice. It is why we have a bottom-up strategic planning system that empowers our local councils—the closest level of elected representation to the community, I will give them that—to undertake local environmental plans [LEPs] and development control plans [DCPs]. They are done through extensive and detailed local work and community consultation. Good strategic planning uses local knowledge and insights to shape a future which has buy-in from our communities. It often requires tough decisions to meet growth and housing targets, such as decisions about where the local environment and infrastructure can and cannot support density.
This bill, in its current form, seeks to abolish district and regional planning panels. The Opposition will move amendments to those provisions. The district planning panels, like the Sydney North Planning Panel that covers my electorate, include two council-nominated members appointed for each council, ensuring a local voice in decisions. This Labor Government seeks to remove that local voice, but we will seek to retain those panels to maintain that community input. The bill also seeks to abolish the local community participation plans that LGAs shape to set out how the planning authority will engage the public in decision-making.
Lane Cove and North Sydney have had their plans in place since 2019; Mosman, since 2020. Each of them outlines how the council will engage with its community in the powerful role of exercising its planning functions. They include assessment and determination of development applications, and preparation of local strategic plans, LEPs, DCPs and contribution plans. They are all crucial decisions councils make which communities deserve a say in. The Opposition will move amendments that seek to guarantee meaningful engagements, not just box‑ticking exercises. There is also significant concern, which the Minister will have heard, that the Minister will use his discretion to cut public exhibition and consultation on State significant developments from 28 days to 14 days. The Opposition opposes any reduction in consultation on what are major projects that could clearly have major impacts. We have also sought a minimum exhibition time frame of 28 days for consultation to be enshrined in the targeted assessment process rather than centralising more power with the Minister. I ask the Government to support that amendment.
The bill formally establishes the Housing Delivery Authority [HDA], giving it a permanent legal base while keeping its current powers. This has raised significant community concern. While its current form has spectacularly failed to deliver any actual housing approvals or tangible outcomes on the ground, it nevertheless raises concerns. We will continue to hold the Government accountable to ensure that this body—and any other—performs effectively and that power is not abused. That is why the Opposition will move to create a joint select committee to review the HDA every three years, ensuring that it remains effective and accountable to this Parliament—not just centralised power that the Minister continues to seek to accumulate. Concerns have also been raised about the Development Coordination Authority [DCA] and the Opposition will move an amendment that it must also be required to publish annual reports so that the public and this Parliament can scrutinise its decisions and activities.
I will share a few specific pieces of community feedback I have received. North Shore residents expect that climate change and environmental impacts will never be swept aside in the pursuit of faster approvals. Some argue that recent court decisions, in particular, have confirmed the need to consider offsite and cumulative emissions impacts in planning. One of the many groups that have reached out to me, Mosman Parks and Bushland Association, states:
The reforms will not benefit the people of NSW. They are a kick in the guts to communities such as Mosman Parks & Bushland and its members who have been working for 60 years to protect bushland, public land and the environment. Our volunteers bush regenerate and protect land in the Mosman municipality and in the Sydney Harbour National Park.
Extension of time
That is just one very clear example of the deep concern among local community groups who fear losing environmental protections that have been painstakingly built over decades. []
What is most disappointing is that this debate comes on a day when the New South Wales Labor Government's failure to deliver housing supply has been laid bare. New figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that New South Wales is 43.5 per cent short of its year one housing target under the National Housing Accord. Only 42,580 homes were delivered in the past 12 months, compared with the 75,400 needed each year to meet the five-year target of 377,000 homes. Labor's own budget papers admit that the State is set to fall short by 137,000 homes over the next five years, forecasting just 240,000 completions. One year down and the Minns Labor Government is already far behind, with no credible plan to catch up.
NSW Labor is failing to address the housing supply and affordability crisis in my community and in every community across the State. The most obvious evidence that we are now seeing is of Labor's one-size-fits-all low‑ and mid-rise housing reform approach, which focuses development in a narrow range of high land value postcodes. This approach encourages more luxury and ultra-expensive apartments rather than diverse, affordable housing across our State. For example, the Government's recent changes to planning controls have seen a spike in applications for mid-rise developments—mid-rise can be up to eight storeys in this context—in suburbs and areas like Mosman and North Sydney, where unimproved land values are already so high that the resulting dwellings will be priced well beyond the reach of people like first home buyers and essential workers. The planning system, as it stands, is incentivising luxury supply over affordability, which does not help to solve the real housing shortage for families, downsizers or key workers.
I will share an example from May 2023 of a three-storey building of 20 apartments in Mosman that sold off the plan in less than two hours—the first off-the-plan sell-out in seven years at that time—with the highest priced apartment, a 215 square metres three-bedroom apartment, fetching north of $15 million. It was not waterfront and it did not have any views—although it is beautifully located in the Mosman village, very walkable and close to public transport, which I am sure they will all be enjoying. I understand that this prestige development broke the non-waterfront record in Mosman more than 10 times in one day for 20 apartments in the block. That was just a three-storey development. I acknowledge that the apartment did have a six-car garage and a wine cellar, I understand.
That reflects how inaccessible those types of developments are to the vast majority of our community. But this is the very type of housing stock that Minister Scully has prioritised in his approach to planning reforms. The apparent frenzy of site consolidations across the Mosman local government area might be seen as a plus by some who want raw housing numbers. But an influx of luxury apartments is not the answer to affordability. It will also impact the affordability of the types of properties that even investors purchase to rent out. I do not begrudge those who can afford a $15 million plus apartment. I represent quite a number of people who will always be able to afford a much grander apartment than I rent with my kids. Good on them for working hard, good on them for spending their hard-earned money as they wish. I love seeing their beautiful homes in glossy pictures. But the richness of our community is its diversity. Our richness is not our wealth. Poorly thought-through planning changes can transform the character of an entire community. This approach will only push crucial community capital out of our area—teachers, emergency services, aged-care and childcare workers, and families with young children like my young children's friends.
I appreciate the Minister's time in meeting with me recently, along with the Mosman mayor, to discuss the impacts of the reforms. But there has been no recognition or response to the outcome of his Low and Mid-Rise Housing Policy and, once more, I encourage him to work with local councils on good strategic planning and to commit to supporting infrastructure. Growth should be strategic, not scattergun. Forcing height and density into side streets where schools are full, transport is limited and streets are already congested is not good planning, especially when there is no vision or funding for supporting infrastructure. Local communities, through councils and residents, are best placed to identify appropriate sites for growth and that knowledge should be respected, not overridden. This narrow focus ignores housing needs outside those limited areas and fails to stimulate genuine housing uptake where it is urgently needed. It is the kind of principle that this Government is enshrining across the board in removing community input from its planning reforms and housing reforms.
Our communities deserve a planning system that listens, that protects what matters and that delivers real, practical results—not just for development, but for families, schools, local infrastructure and the environment. The Opposition will continue to advocate for balanced reform that maintains community voice and consultation, supports environmental protection and accelerates housing delivery in a responsible, accountable and transparent way. I recognise the work of the Leader of the Opposition and Scott Farlow. Not only have they gone to the Government to push for a bipartisan approach to housing and planning reforms to ensure that we seek to meet the housing targets we have committed to, but also they have worked diligently on this legislation and constructively in consultation with the Government to try to improve it. I urge the Government to support the amendments that they put forward.
I will keep standing up for my constituents in North Shore. I thank all the residents who have raised their concerns with me. Many of those residents will not be satisfied with components of the legislation that I will support as it proceeds through the House. But on the key and core issues raised with me I am continuing to fight to preserve their voice, to ensure that there is transparency and accountability and that we can protect our local environment. I will keep fighting for a fair say about their villages and the infrastructure they need. I will make sure that their concerns are heard and keep working to ensure that they are addressed alongside our efforts to deliver housing supply and affordability.
Ms STEPHANIE DI PASQUA (Drummoyne) (20:37:33):
I make a brief contribution to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 as a proud representative of my community—and I stress how important it is for me to convey their views in this place. I say from the outset that I am fully supportive of the goal to streamline the planning system in New South Wales. Removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape is essential. We all agree that the current planning system is slow, complicated and often frustrating for everyone—for residents and councils and for industry, which has a really important job in delivering more homes in this State.
Housing affordability is a critical issue—we all accept that—and I have consistently worked in a bipartisan and productive way by putting up ideas in this Chamber to make sure we contribute constructively to addressing this problem. I understand the challenges of housing affordability more than most, experiencing firsthand how difficult it is for young families to buy a home, and I am the first person to say that I want to do everything in my power to make sure that young people do not give up on the Aussie dream of owning their own home. We know that supply is not meeting demand in the housing market—and has not done so for many years—and increasing supply is part of the solution to the housing crisis. But I hold serious concerns about how this bill approaches community participation and the broader impact on our environment and local character. One of the most concerning changes in the bill is the removal of planning panels and, more broadly, the reduction of community voice in planning decisions. From my experience serving on local council, I can say this with confidence: When communities are genuinely involved in planning decisions, the outcomes are far better. We get projects that fit the character of the area, have community buy-in, and consider local amenities and the needs of residents. Removing that vital community voice does not streamline progress; it damages trust in government and leads to poorer outcomes.
In my area, Canada Bay Council has consistently met and even exceeded housing targets set by the State Government. We achieved this with active community participation. We did not just approve developments; we worked with residents to identify and plan for infrastructure to support new homes and growing communities. We did not need to override local voices or cut them out of the process to meet housing targets. We proved that community participation and housing growth can co-exist. That has to be part of the equation—no ifs or buts. The community needs to understand not just what is being built, but what infrastructure—schools, transport, roads, parks and health services—will be built to support that growth. Consultation is key.
What troubles my community is that more than 30,000 new homes were planned for our area without any commitment to infrastructure. Not a single dollar has been allocated to upgrade Concord hospital's emergency department. Changes like the Homebush Transport Oriented Development [TOD] were rammed through. My community felt that throughout the entire process. I take this opportunity to share a bit about that experience for local residents who I represent. The first iteration of the Homebush TOD proposed removing an entire primary school which has an established school community—Our Lady of the Assumption in North Strathfield—and replacing it with a park. In an area set to get 18,000 more homes, the planning department and the Government were essentially saying to this growing community, "You can have a school or a park, but you can't have both."
The school was not even notified about the proposed changes to its zoning. Residents had to register for the consultation sessions, which all booked out quickly, meaning that some people did not have the opportunity to participate. Together with the community, we were able to advocate for a better outcome. I wrote to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and his department about these concerns. I acknowledge the Minister's presence in the Chamber. What this example shows is that without community participation in the process, we would not have been able to stop that change. We now have a better outcome. That well loved primary school can keep its doors open and educate future generations, and the community now has a new open space to support its growth.
You cannot have a robust planning system without meaningful input from the community. It is not just short‑sighted; it is plain wrong. That is why I support sensible amendments to this bill. Such amendments include introducing the single community participation plan across the entire State so that residents in my community and across New South Wales can expect a consistent and fair opportunity to have their say; and standardising the notification and public exhibition requirements across all planning authorities so that communities know when developments are happening and how to have input, no matter which council or agency is making the decision. Right now in my community there is so much confusion about who the consent authority is for development applications. This amendment ensures that no matter the consent authority, no matter who is making the determination, the community is able to have its say because participation should not be optional. It should be a minimum standard in planning. We can and should make this legislation more democratic and support participation from our communities. Communities are not obstacles to development. They are partners in shaping liveable communities with amenity.
Another aspect that worries my community is how the bill might sideline environmental protections and the preservation of local character, including in heritage conservation areas in Drummoyne. My community is experiencing this at the moment following the introduction of the Low and Mid-Rise Housing State Environmental Planning Policy [SEPP]. I also support an amendment to establish a joint select committee to review the Housing Development Authority. The authority is being given extraordinary planning powers, and with great power must always come great accountability. This bipartisan committee is a reasonable and responsible step to ensure that we get the balance right. It does not stop the work of the authority, but it adds an important layer of oversight so that decisions are transparent and driven by public interest, and so that the authority continues to reflect the Housing Accord's goals.
Planning is not just about numbers and buildings. The most fundamental principle of planning is creating communities. It is about people's lives, their connection to the place they live in, and protecting and promoting the environment. We must ensure that any reforms do not come at the expense of our parks or roads—or, in my electorate, the more than 35 kilometres of foreshore we are blessed to have—and the unique character that makes each of our communities special. There are some great examples of this. Through community activity, successful campaigns have been won to promote better access to the foreshore in new developments, and that came from participation of people in my local community.
I am not against reform. In fact, I welcome it. But reform must be done carefully. For those reasons, I ask the Government to consider and accept the sensible and reasonable amendments put forward by the Opposition in good faith. Yes, by all means simplify the Act. Yes, hold under-performing councils accountable. But do not dismantle the community's role in shaping where they live. Streamlining planning should not come at the cost of transparency, community trust or environmental protections. I reiterate my commitment to work in a bipartisan and constructive way to get the best outcome. You can achieve growth and housing affordability. You can have approvals in a timely manner and at the same time you can have a system that reflects and empowers the community to participate and have their say. I thank the House.
Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) (20:46:05):
I will comment on certain provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. It will surprise many people looking at me, but I have actually been around for quite some time. I came into local government in 1991. I spent 21 years at one of the largest councils in New South Wales, Lake Macquarie City Council, and was mayor for some 8½ years. I took planning to be a very serious part of my role. It is certainly what the member for Drummoyne was just referring to: It is fundamental to the development and building of community.
I have yet to see significant consensus across my time in local government. Certainly, that crossed over into this place during my time here. I have been here a bit over 18 years. I have seen lots of tinkering with this beast that is planning law in New South Wales. There have been little add-ons here and pruning there, but nobody ever seems to be particularly satisfied. I reflect back on the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, who took a courageous path to reform planning in New South Wales. No, it was not Frank Sartor; it was the Hon. Brad Hazzard, who approached this matter very seriously. However, he did not arrive at a consensus across the community or in this Parliament as to how that reform could be done, and the attempt failed.
This is something that has to be done. We live in a community where population is growing. I entered politics as an environmentalist. I used to be disparaged as just a greenie before it became much more mainstream to speak out on the natural environment. While ever we are having children and grandchildren and growing our economy, we will have to address the need for housing in our communities. That is a fundamental principle of what this bill is trying to achieve. I believe that the Minister, who is in the Chamber, is trying to do that and I fully support him. As mayor of the City of Lake Macquarie, I did that. It was about getting that balance right. We had to make the natural environment was not damaged to its long-term detriment, and that we actually went back and did reparation. It is about building good community infrastructure that people want to live in. When I travel around the world to Europe and Asia, I see the good and the bad, including some very high‑density areas where the buildings rise 60 storeys. They are not particularly attractive, but the planners understood that it is at ground level that we find the human condition and make it a liveable city. I think we can find some elements in that to inform planning in New South Wales.
Planning for Bush Fire Protection
I come back to some of the issues that concern me. I acknowledge my staff. Francesca in particular has entered into some significant conversations with the Minister and his staff, and I appreciate that. From those conversations, we have determined that the bill would move bushfire planning sections currently set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act into a State environmental planning policy. Section 10.3 of the Act requires councils to map bushfire-prone land every five years. Section 4.14 provides that development consent on mapped bushfire-prone land cannot be granted unless it meets certain requirements, including to conform with the standard. This seminal document sets out the bushfire planning matters that need to be considered at the various stages of a planning process. Section 4.14 also allows councils to refer development consents to the RFS in certain circumstances.
Planning for Bush Fire Protection
I understand the Government proposes to move the relevant sections to consolidate them with other provisions relating to natural hazards. However, this has caused uncertainty for councils and qualified bushfire consultants, who currently lack insight into the content or development of the provisions of the State environmental planning policy. I therefore will support the amendments that will be proposed by the Government and the member for Wakehurst, which retain section 10.3 of the Act along with an amended version of section 4.14. Amended section 4.14 provides more flexibility in the regime, but continues to incorporate into the Act the standard as the key standard for bushfire planning. The Minister has advised that the parts of section 4.14 omitted from the Act, including in relation to a qualified bushfire consultant's certificate and referral to RFS, will be covered by the State environmental planning policy. I trust that is correct. The Government will consult on the State environmental planning policy, as it is required to do, which will give key stakeholders the chance to have their say.
It has also become apparent to me in conversations about this bill that, while our bushfire planning system in New South Wales is world class, there is sand in the gears. To this end, we must also continue improvements to policy documents governing the system, including the guide for bushfire-prone land mapping and planning for bushfire protection. I note that a review of planning for bushfire protection is underway. I have heard this document needs updating to make the system more efficient and address gaping policy holes, including in relation to renewable projects. The need to fill this gap is particularly significant for Lake Macquarie, where the largest battery project in the Southern Hemisphere is being built at Eraring Power Station, currently the site of the largest thermal coal power station in the Southern Hemisphere.
The bill proposes to undermine the role of the environment and community in the State's planning system. It purports to relate to housing, and it absolutely does, but it does not only relate to housing. The bill applies to all development, including coal, gas and critical minerals projects. This cannot be overlooked, even while seeking to do what is necessary to facilitate and expedite much-needed housing in this State. I therefore will support the amendments that will be proposed by the member for Sydney, the member for Pittwater and the Government that would embed some guardrails in the legislation. These amendments strengthen the Act's objects for the benefit of environmental protection and community welfare, and explicitly provide that high-impact developments categorised as "designated development" under the Act or environmental planning instruments cannot be targeted assessment developments.
If passed, the bill will constitute some of the most sweeping reforms to the New South Wales planning system that I have seen in my 18 years in this place, and I believe certain amendments to the bill will improve it. However, I commend the New South Wales Government and the Minister for their enthusiasm in addressing longstanding issues within a system renowned for its complexity, red tape and delays. It is time that we take a holistic look at the planning system and shake the sand out of the gears so that more diverse and suitable development can be facilitated that is good for local communities, without unnecessary delays. In closing, I acknowledge that other amendments will be proposed. I have looked at those on face value, and I believe they are being proposed in good faith, but that does not mean that they can all be agreed to. I hope that all 93 members of this House have the interests of their local communities, regional communities and the State as a whole at heart. I commend the bill, which I hope will be amended, to the House.
Mr GURMESH SINGH (Coffs Harbour) (20:54:48):
I make a contribution to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. Regional communities, like the community I represent in the electorate of Coffs Harbour, too often feel buried under layers of bureaucracy when it comes to the planning, development and growth of housing. When it comes to housing, regional New South Wales is not short of opportunity. We have land available, tradies ready and growing communities, but the system has kept getting in the way. Every unnecessary form, duplicated assessment or delayed approval adds time and cost, as well as stress and anxiety. That is money families cannot afford and time builders do not have, as well as stress and anxiety that nobody wants or needs. Simplifying these processes can help unlock that potential and take the pressure off the State's housing market at the same time.
Right now, people are struggling. Young families are being priced out of the market, renters are facing record competition and record high rents, and too many people are giving up on the idea of ever owning a home. They are losing hope. In regional areas, where wages are lower but construction costs keep climbing, that pressure is felt even more sharply. Housing should be something people can aspire to, not something they fear they will never achieve. That starts with a planning system that works for them, not against them. However, as we simplify, we must also safeguard what makes regional New South Wales unique: its character, its environment and its liveability.
We all know that the New South Wales planning system has become slow, complex and, in many cases, counterproductive. Developers, builders, councils and ordinary families trying to build a home are all saying the same thing: It is too hard, it takes too long and it costs too much. That is why the Opposition broadly supports the intent of the bill. Making the system simpler, faster and more transparent is long overdue. For too long, the process has favoured red tape over results. One aspect of the bill that has raised some concerns is the proposal to remove two sections of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that relate to bushfire-prone land. It had proposed to remove section 4.14, which deals with the consultation and consent on bushfire-prone land, and section 10.3, which determines what constitutes bushfire-prone land.
I understand the Government will accept an amendment to retain section 10.3 in the Act and slightly amend section 4.14 to ensure that, before granting consent on bushfire‑prone land, the consent authority must consider the relevant bushfire protection planning guide. I urge the Minister to outline this process in more detail, including how the State environmental planning policy will operate, in his speech in reply. Coming into what looks like a dry spring and summer, when fires are already raging on the North Coast, the Opposition understands the importance of planning for, and mitigating against, bushfire risk.
Another area that deserves careful consideration is the proposal to abolish regional planning panels. These panels bring expertise, consistency and a level of independence that many local councils, particularly in rural areas, simply do not have the resources to replicate. Handing full control of major, complex applications back to individual councils risks inconsistency and political influence creeping into the process. Regional panels exist to make sure that regional voices are heard with fairness and technical rigour. Removing them risks losing that balance. Before we dismantle a system that gives structure and stability, we must make sure that something better, not just something different, is put in its place. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move amendments in this regard.
At the end of the day, this debate is about the outcomes that matter: homes for families, jobs for communities and opportunities for the next generation. If New South Wales is serious about delivering more housing, we must recognise that it cannot happen in isolation. Housing supply depends on the infrastructure that supports it—the roads, schools, hospitals, and water and sewer systems that turn new estates into communities. That is why the State, Commonwealth and local governments must work together to deliver the infrastructure that makes housing possible.
Councils cannot bear that cost on their own, and builders cannot deliver homes without the public investment that underpins them. Coordinated investment across all levels of government is essential if we are to open up land and unlock the housing supply we so desperately need, particularly in regional areas where the financial margins are so tight. The planning system should be a partner in that effort, not a barrier to it. If the bill moves us closer to a system that facilitates cooperation, cuts duplication and delivers real results on the ground, then that is reform worth supporting.
Everyone in this House recognises that the planning system needs fixing. I support the intent of the bill and the effort to make things simpler and more consistent across the State. But I also urge the Government to listen carefully to the concerns of regional communities and to make sure the reforms deliver real benefits for everyone, not just those within the Sydney basin. Simpler planning should not mean weaker planning. It should mean smarter, faster and fairer planning for our cities, for our regions, for the future of New South Wales and, most importantly, for families. A home is more than just walls, a floor and a roof. It is where our children take their first steps; it is where the happy memories that make up a meaningful life are made. Importantly, a home represents safety and security. It allows people to put down roots in our communities.
I acknowledge the Minister and his staff for the very collegial way they dealt with the Opposition. We had many conversations during the construction of the bill and ongoing regarding the amendments. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON (Clarence) (21:00:43):
I broadly support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. I acknowledge the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, who has been sitting in the Chamber for several hours.
Mr David Layzell:
It's a marathon!
Mr RICHIE WILLIAMSON:
It is a marathon for him listening to this debate. To me, and I am sure to others in this place, the way in which the Government is considering the debate highlights the seriousness of the matter. The Opposition will support the Government's planning law reform bill, though it will move some amendments. I believe those amendments are important to make the system fairer, faster and more transparent. I am sure that the Minister and the Government understand how difficult reform is of this Act. I hope that the bipartisan way in which the Opposition is working with the Government highlights that this an important matter for the people of New South Wales. Change in this area has traditionally been extremely difficult and, at times, politically supercharged.
I am glad that the Opposition and the Government are focused on getting more homes built without adding cost or complexity to a system that is already very costly and complex. However, there is more to be done in regional New South Wales to drive down the costs of homes being built in the bush. As a former mayor of Clarence Valley, I understand the planning difficulties that some regional councils face. This is an important matter for regional councils; that is not lost on me. I know that a number of local government councillors are very nervous about this proposed change. They see it as the Government grabbing away the right that they have under the Act to consider planning. I say to those nervous councillors that, in my opinion, there will still be plenty of opportunity for them to have input into the planning processes.
It is important for local governments to get the strategic planning right. If they do that correctly from the start, then their local environmental plan [will reflect the strategic plan and, in turn, their development control plans [DCPs] will reflect the LEP. Planning should then be simpler in New South Wales. I also support the principle of the 10‑day deemed approval, but my support comes with a qualification. If the local government area has its strategic plan, LEP and DCP right, the next logical step is to approve the development application. I am assuming that if a developer ticks all the boxes, then it should be approved within the 10 days. I am also assuming that if there is a straying out of the LEP, then it should not even get to council.
If there is a pushing of the envelope in the DCP, then I assume questions will be asked and there will be a stop‑the‑clock provision for the 10‑day deemed approval. But it is also fair to say that some regional councils are not up to speed with their planners. Planning staff are hard to find in the city; they are even harder to find in the bush. I urge the Government to work with councils to upskill them to ensure that those councils are ready to take on this reform. Some councils will need extra support to make sure the development control plans, LEPs and strategic plans that they are responsible for are robust, fit for purpose and reflect the new amendments to the Act. It may take some time for councils to get up to speed.
The Opposition will move a number of amendments, including in regard to the Housing Delivery Authority that will subject it to a full statutory review. I have a strong opinion on the role of planning panels in regional New South Wales. I hope that the Government will genuinely acknowledge that role. The panels bring a level of expertise to the planning system that some councils cannot afford. They bring specialist views to some areas, particularly to my areas of the Richmond Valley and the Clarence Valley. For example, the views of a high-level planner, a high-level engineer or even a high‑level ecologist could feed into the development approval process. Not every local government area can afford that or has that expertise on hand.
I have seen the very positive way that regional planning panels work in the bush. It is important the Government understands that things are a little different in regional New South Wales compared with the cities. The Act tries to deliver a one‑size‑fits‑all solution across New South Wales, but I acknowledge that is what Acts do. As I said, I have worked with planning panels, and I have worked within them. In fact, I have been on them as mayor. I have been a supporter of them and will continue to be. We need a fair, robust and equitable planning system in New South Wales. I support the bill before the House. The planning system needs to deliver positive outcomes for the people of New South Wales.
The target assessment pathway would not apply to major non‑residential developments like mines, waste incinerators, transmission lines, wind farms, solar farms et cetera. I think that is a positive move. Finally, I thank the Government for bringing the bill forward. This is an important piece of legislation for the people of New South Wales so we can ensure that we have more housing supply in the market. It means our young people can get into the housing market and ensures that they have somewhere safe to live in the greatest State in the greatest nation in the world. I thank the House.
Mr DAVID MEHAN (The Entrance) (21:08:56):
I make a brief contribution to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. I begin by noting that no government in this State since the Cahill Labor Government in the post-war period has done more to deliver housing that is affordable and in sufficient quantity to the people of New South Wales to satisfy the demands of our citizens. This reform is the most significant change to our planning laws since the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was introduced by a former Labor government.
A part of this reform is trying to get housing moving in this State to deliver affordable homes to people where they need them and in sufficient quantity to make sure that our people have the shelter that they need and deserve. I commend the Minister for his work on the bill, as well as his staff and the department. The bill does a lot to get housing moving. I commend the emphasis on making it easier for complying development to get approved. I commend that there is a focus on development that is not complying being more closely scrutinised through coordination by the Housing Delivery Authority and the Development Coordination Authority, and the various changes to the arrangements that mean State authorities need to be coordinated to address development applications [DAs].
I am particularly pleased with the changes that have been made to zombie DAs, which I have spoken to the Minister about many times. The changes contained within sections 4.53 and 4.57 go a long way to addressing the problem of DAs being granted to people who own land on the promise that they will deliver development, but then no development going ahead. In my electorate, as I have said in the House before, there are over 350 approved dwellings in The Entrance township alone. Blocks of land are fully serviced by the State with kerb and gutter, footpaths, sewer, water and electricity but, because of a decision by a private owner that the land does not suit their idea of what profit they can make, they refuse to build on it, even though they have been granted a DA. Some DAs go all the way back to 2014. I look forward to those provisions being used rigorously to make sure that housing is delivered where people expect it. I commend the bill to the House and congratulate once more the Minns Labor Government on all it is doing to get housing moving in this State.
Mr DAVID LAYZELL (Upper Hunter) (21:12:21):
I make a contribution to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. Many people in our community support reform to the planning system. Probably one of the most important things we can do is to try to get the balance right between a growing community and the needs of the community. This is a big challenge in the Upper Hunter, particularly with the number of large projects in the area. We have had a lot of experience with the planning system. Many people get to know it intimately. I am married to a town planner, so I get to know the planning system through my wife, and my in-laws are town planning lawyers. In our household, environmental law is often a topic of discussion. It is a complicated field. Only when we get into the nuts and bolts of these large projects do we realise how complicated they can be.
The planning system requires consultation. Many like to compare our planning system with other States. Often people come to me and say that it is easier in Queensland or harder in Victoria. The system requires consultation with people on the ground. Links between communities and decision-makers are important. We must have proper checks and balances in the system to make sure that it is transparent. Sometimes we lose focus on the fact that the planning system must be understood by people. A lot of frustration comes when people do not understand why decision-makers make certain decisions. That is frustrating for communities.
These reforms are focused on housing, which is important at the moment. We must do everything to improve housing. I commend the bipartisan work to support these planning reforms to deliver housing for the future in the best way we can. In many ways, we could have gone even further to allow housing developments and renovations to be simpler for councils and applicants. Too often these developments are held up by the process, and simple renovations can take an extraordinary amount of time and add a lot to costs. Often that is not due to the complexity of the project but due to the lack of town planning resources in local councils. Spoken about a lot in my area is the lack of available town planning personnel and resources to do the work that is required to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb.
The changes we are debating today should absolutely be targeted towards housing. There is a fear that some of the large renewable projects could take advantage of some of the changes. I personally do not see that in the bill, but I share the belief that we must make sure this reform is focused on housing. It is about making it easier to get the right housing through the system and encouraging development of our towns going forward rather than encouraging large projects, whether in mining or in renewables or otherwise. There was a recent power station project in my area that was reviewed. Those projects need robust reviews. We must check everything about them. One size does not fit all when it comes to those large projects. They require a lot of scrutiny. The bill is all about letting those housing projects through so that housing can be built, and applying the same amount of scrutiny to large industrial projects that impact everyone in the community.
There are a number of concerns about zombie development applications [DAs] and consents. Wealthy people buy up property knowing that the town will need to be developed as it expands. They get the development approval at some point but there is no pressure on them to actually develop their land. More and more we find that they are sitting on the land, making a lot of money from it. That probably looks great as an item on their balance sheet. They are making 10 per cent just in the land value because it has development approval, but they are sitting on a community asset. We must get that balance right. Developers need to make a profit but, at the same time, they are sitting on land that the community needs to develop their towns. We could do a lot more in our regional towns to help with the State's housing needs. We must make sure that people with zombie DAs either use it or lose it. I think we are at a time now when many of those decisions need to be made. So it is good that we are putting those provisions in. I applaud the Minister for looking at that, because it particularly affects regional areas.
Another item is the regional planning panels. I have experienced issues relating to those panels. There are serious delays to approvals. Whilst many are concerned about losing that local voice—and we cannot dismiss that; we need to make sure that we are not losing the local aspect of the assessments—the system is not working well currently. Reform needs to happen in that space. I do not know about losing them altogether. Councils have approached me really worried about the amount of work that will now fall onto them and the limited resources that they have. And, as I have mentioned before, one of the biggest issues is the amount of work that town planning departments need to do and the lack of people in them to do that work. There is concern about that.
One of the projects that went through the regional planning panel in my area was a redevelopment of the football ground. At one stage the panel raised that they needed a new plan of management for the field. I remind members that it was already a football field and this was just a proposed refit of the grandstand already there. That plan of management required a full community consultation and about nine months of work, so the grandstand money that was allocated just sat there. By the time we got through the regional planning panel, that money was no longer enough to do the project. I had to sit with council and say, "Well, the Government has changed now. I can't see us getting more money. We have to decide what we're going to do."
Extension of time
We had to downsize that project completely and then go back through the planning system again. That was a great lost opportunity at the time. It took us a very long time for something that was not a great need. But the regional planning panel shot off in a direction that we could not control and lost that ability to provide efficiency and some sort of clarity with its decision‑making. Another item in the bill that I commend is the proportionate‑to‑risk development assessment that has been adopted. It is important that we focus on the things that matter. []
There can be a lot of frustration with the planning system. For example, people who live on hillsides have complained to me that, as part of a renovation or a DA, they have been asked for a flood assessment. A lot of consultants seem to be getting paid for work that really does not add value. That aspect of the bill is really great and gets to the nuts and bolts of what we need the planning system to do, making sure it is efficient but also focused on the right things. I certainly support the Development Coordination Authority. Having that single centralised decision‑making authority will be essential. The application of that is important. If we are not careful, we could end up with another layer of government.
It is important that we embed experts in the same team and that they are working together. It is very difficult when you are working with different government departments. Let us hope that applications go through the new system efficiently and that, when they come out, they make sense, especially for people on the ground. There are many examples where that has not been the case. In summary, reform is needed and welcome. There is certainly an element of faith when you are working with a planning system this complicated, but it is important that we continue to try to improve and get that balance right between our expanding communities and the quality of their expansion. I support the bill.
Mrs WENDY TUCKERMAN (Goulburn) (21:24:40):
I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. The housing crisis in New South Wales is being felt acutely across regional communities, including the Goulburn electorate. Families are struggling to find a place to live. Young people are being locked out of the property market altogether. And in towns across our region, essential workers—police, nurses, teachers—simply cannot afford to live where they work. We need more homes. We need them built quickly. And we need to make it easier to get housing projects moving, particularly in regional centres, where the pressure is as intense as it is in our major cities. Infrastructure to support growth is also needed.
But in addressing this crisis, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We need to tread cautiously with the planning reforms currently being proposed by the Government. There is a real risk of us returning to the era of part 3A—a system that concentrated power in the hands of the New South Wales Government, bypassed local councils and excluded communities from decision-making. For those who remember, part 3A was introduced by the former Carr Labor Government. It was widely criticised for secrecy and a lack of accountability. After years of public backlash and damning independent reviews, it was repealed in 2011.
Yet here we are again, with Labor introducing legislation that mirrors those same centralising, pro‑developer powers—all under the guise of solving the housing crisis. We cannot have planning decisions made behind closed doors. Communities in the Goulburn electorate and across regional New South Wales deserve to have a voice. Developers should not be able to run roughshod over ordinary people. Part 3A became synonymous with decisions made for profit rather than the public good. If we are not vigilant, we risk returning to the same model. These new planning laws would make it easier for large developments to be approved with less scrutiny, not only in Sydney but across regional New South Wales. We support building more homes. We want supply. But we also want fairness, transparency and genuine community consultation.
The Government frames the bill as "streamlining" planning. What communities across the Goulburn electorate hear is "less oversight, fewer safeguards and diminished local input". Regional New South Wales has already experienced a lack of consultation, broken promises and the imposition of projects by city‑based companies with little regard for local voices. The reforms would significantly reduce environmental oversight; weaken protections for biodiversity, water resources and cultural heritage; and shorten or remove consultation periods for affected communities. They give the planning Minister expanded powers to declare projects regionally significant or economically critical, effectively sidelining local councils and residents in decisions that will profoundly affect their towns and livelihoods.
As a member of this House, I have seen project after project in my electorate. They are projects that the Labor members' electorates do not want, like the Veolia waste incinerator in Tarago, and projects that are not on the right site, like the Plasrefine/Repoly plastics recycling facility in Moss Vale and the 300-metre tall wind turbines and solar panels scattered across our farms, metres from residences. This is not just about housing; it affects renewable energy projects, mining proposals and major infrastructure developments across regional New South Wales. Communities in my electorate have already seen the impact of projects being pushed through with minimal consultation, high-pressure contracts and tactics that leave farmers and small business owners with little recourse. We cannot allow regional communities to be treated as a secondary consideration.
We cannot allow environmental protections, bushfire safeguards and community voices to be quietly eroded in the name of efficiency. Strong joint regional planning panels, robust local engagement and transparent processes are essential to protect the interests of our towns and landscapes. At its core, this is a matter of fairness and trust. We can build more homes and reform planning—all members agree that needs to happen—but we can do it in a way that respects communities, safeguards our environment and ensures that development benefits rather than burdens our people. The people of the Goulburn electorate are proud and resilient. If the Government is serious about reform, it must bring communities along with it, not trample over them. That is how to build a stronger and fairer New South Wales—one that respects the people who live here, not just the corporations seeking profit. I urge the Government to support the Opposition's amendments to the bill at the consideration in detail stage for a more balanced reform.
Mr ADAM CROUCH (Terrigal) (21:30:08):
I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025. To the Minister's relief, mine will be the last contribution to debate on behalf of the Opposition. I commend the Minister for his stamina. He has done a great job today in the Chamber. It is good to see Ministers remain in the Chamber for the entirety of debate on their legislation.
Mr Paul Scully:
I've been waiting for this one all night.
Mr ADAM CROUCH:
I know you have, Minister.
Mr Justin Clancy:
Give him an extension of time now.
Mr ADAM CROUCH:
I said it would be a brief contribution—so I probably will seek an extension of time. From the outset, the Opposition supports the bill. I acknowledge the outstanding work done by my friend and colleague from the other place, shadow Minister Scott Farlow, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party. This is how good legislation is framed, with proper bipartisanship—unlike what we saw in 2013 when the former Labor Opposition opposed our sensible reforms to the planning platforms in New South Wales. This is what can be done when governments and oppositions behave appropriately. It is great to see sensible reform. Sadly, the Government's planning reforms have not worked, and that is a problem for everybody, including home owners right across New South Wales. That is no more evident than on the Central Coast.
Housing affordability is a huge issue for home owners in our region, especially in my electorate. One of the most glaring issues is house prices across my electorate of Terrigal. It would be hard to deny that when I was elected in 2015 the most socio-economically deprived area in my electorate was the suburb of Springfield. Fast‑forward to 2025, and the median house price in Springfield is now $930,000. How does a first home buyer attain a home in what was effectively the poorest part of my electorate when it costs almost $1 million for a median‑priced house? Another example that I have given in the Chamber before is the suburb of Copacabana, which became very famous because a certain MP purchased a house there—that would be the Prime Minister of Australia.
Mr Jihad Dib:
Did you send him a welcome card?
Mr ADAM CROUCH:
He will get a welcome to the electorate letter when he finally moves in, and I will explain to him all the things he has done wrong. The Prime Minister paid well over the average median house price in Copacabana, which is currently sitting at $2.5 million. He paid north of $4 million for his house. Again, that reflects the fact that housing availability on the Central Coast is virtually impossible due to lack of delivery. This is an ongoing problem on the Central Coast, but it is not unique to my electorate. I note that the member for The Entrance is in the Chamber. His electorate has similar problems, as does Wyong, Gosford and the bottom end of Swansea. That is due in no small part to a former recalcitrant council—its staff were sacked—that found new and innovative ways to defer, delay or refuse housing approvals, while racking up half a billion dollars worth of debt at the time. Sadly, the council was anti-development and anti-housing delivery.
When I was elected in 2015, the Central Coast needed to deliver somewhere in the vicinity of 2,300 new homes a year, and it delivered only 1,500. We have an enormous problem with delivery, and that was compounded by that appalling council that refused to approve housing applications, development applications [DAs] and rezonings in anything close to a timely manner. In fact, it got so bad that a former planning Minister implemented a local planning panel because the council was incapable of making the simplest decisions in response to applications for the delivery of any project of any size. The Central Coast has benefited from both a local planning panel and a joint regional planning panel, which have been helpful. There have been a lot of criticisms of the time taken to deliver decisions in both of those areas. In 2025 the Central Coast Council is still the fourth slowest council for DA assessment times, with an average of 152 days.
I note part of the legislation will remove joint regional planning panels. I fully support the amendment that the National Party will move, with the support of the Liberal Party, to ensure that joint regional planning panels are retained. Look no further than the Central Coast Council's development application processing time. Those delays are still occurring without the added burden of the work that is currently undertaken by our Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel. Those regional planning panels also take pressure off councils when it comes to incredibly significant, serious and detailed applications for major projects. I note council has representatives on that panel.
The panel also provides the community with an outlet for public consultation. That has worked very effectively for the Central Coast in those very difficult and complex areas that, quite frankly, have bogged down council for years, including when it was way behind on the necessary DA approvals and assessment times. I ask the Minister to please reconsider his position on joint regional planning panels. The Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel is a great example of how it can work. Although it has not worked as swiftly as many would like, it has been a huge improvement on what was processed—or not processed, effectively—by the council. Removing the panel would put a huge burden on the council's already heavily pressured planning department. This is a situation where a joint regional planning panel is still required.
If council got to the situation where it was doing a stellar job rolling out DA approvals in acceptable time limits, so be it. The Minister could review the situation then. But we are a perfect example of why a joint regional planning panel should be in place. The recalcitrant nature of the former council is the reason for the local regional planning panel. That council was incapable of making the simplest decisions on anything at the time. I thank former planning Minister Stokes for implementing that local planning panel, because it was very much required. The council had put a handbrake on every level of development on the Central Coast. I point out to the Minister that it was a Labor‑Greens majority council at the time it went into administration—again. Their attitude was to defer, delay and not deliver.
The bill is a great step forward to remove and slash red tape and encourage and increase supply. The Central Coast is a perfect example of where that has to happen. We must make it easier for organisations and individuals to look at rezonings. The bill standardises notifications and public exhibition requirements, expands complying developments and allows councils to approve minor variations and complying development standards, which is excellent. If councils do not approve those minor variations in the required time frame, they are deemed approved. Councils are on notice. I note that Local Government NSW agrees with the time frame, as does the Opposition. It is good to drive councils to do the right thing.
Extension of time
For too long, there were interdepartmental arguments. I saw that, with Transport for NSW saying one thing, Planning saying another and the environment department saying something else. We could never get consensus on anything. That has been made evident in areas on the Central Coast, like Somersby, which is zoned industrial. No development could be delivered because of alleged environmental situations. There are areas where development was held up because a swift parrot may or may not have lived in a particular area, even if there was no proof that it is there. The list of those issues goes on and on. The member for Wyong and I have spoken in the House about developments that have been approved and then opposed by the same council, and that delays delivery of hundreds of homes. That situation has to stop because house prices on the Central Coast are skyrocketing. There is unaffordability and failure of delivery. []
As I said before, removing regional planning panels runs the risk of reducing the capacity of development by councils. The only other threat to delivery of houses on the Central Coast is some of the local MPs. I note that the member for The Entrance is in the Chamber. The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces might want to ask him why he is formally opposed to delivering 239 retirement units at Mingara. That is another impediment to delivering housing for people, which I find quite staggering. We need to be delivering housing for all people of all ages across our region. Every person that goes into a retirement village frees up another house for a family to live in, and that has to happen. I am also pleased that the former Government invested record amounts into infrastructure. As the Minister is aware, Gosford is perfectly set up for transport oriented development because the former Government invested $14 million into digging up the sewer and water pipelines around the CBD. We have areas that are already appropriately set up for transport oriented development. It is important that funding be provided for all of those precincts.
Sadly, the ABS figures released today have shown that New South Wales has fallen 43.5 per cent short of its one-year target for homes. Just 42,581 homes have been delivered over the past 12 months. That is why more has to be done and why it is unaffordable for first home buyers to purchase a home in my electorate. We have to do more. We have to work together to make sure that barriers are broken down for everybody across New South Wales. Every regional member who has contributed to this debate has said that the voices of regional representatives still have to be heard. Joint regional planning panels are a very good idea and have worked well in regional areas. They are staffed by experts who are independent and not emotional about the decisions that need to be made, especially when it comes to rezoning. Rezoning has been a huge, vexing, complex issue on the Central Coast, especially when it comes to overlays with environmental issues and environmental planning. The joint regional planning panel is always able to look at rezoning in a dispassionate, professional way—and an unemotional way, if necessary. That is why it has been so important.
The $12,000 housing and productivity contributions do not help when delivering new housing in areas in greenfield sites, especially around the Central Coast. Most of those are not in my electorate because most of the land in my electorate has already been developed. It is also horrendously expensive, as the Prime Minister has found out. In areas like Wyong and further north, there are great opportunities, but the infrastructure has to be delivered. The pipes, sewers and water all have to be connected and has to happen with the support of the State Government. Council cannot do that alone. I was proud to be part of the former Government, which provided millions and millions of dollars of regional infrastructure funding to the Central Coast to help deliver those vital bits of infrastructure they needed to deliver new housing estates. I am pretty sure the member for Wyong can confirm that a new house in a housing estate in the northern part of his electorate will start at around $700,000. It is still very difficult for first home buyers, so we need to keep driving supply.
I commend the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, shadow Minister the Hon. Scott Farlow, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals for working collaboratively on this bill. The Opposition amendments are sensible and well considered and are not random. A lot of work has gone into them over many months by many people. I ask the Minister to give deep consideration to them because they have not been proposed on a whim. They are based on experience from people who live in the regions and use facilities all the time. The legislation is good. It is not perfect and is not the silver bullet. There is still a lot of work to be done. The Opposition stands ready to work in a bipartisan way with the Minister to help deliver and open up opportunities for home owners of all ages across New South Wales, but especially on the Central Coast.
I meet with a council regularly and it is just as frustrated as everybody else. It cannot find staff to work in its planning departments despite its best efforts to fill positions. They are usually snapped up by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure or developers. The Urban Development Institute of Australia admits that it has also taken a lot of staff. There are other issues outside of this legislation, and it is important that councils come along on the journey. They have to be brought in from the grassroots. Central Coast Council is a very good example of where there could be benefits. It is important that the Government provides councils with all the financial support for additional infrastructure necessary. There is no point putting legislation in place if there is nothing to back it up. This is a good piece of legislation. I acknowledge the Hon. Scott Farlow and all the work that he and his team have put in on the bill. It is excellent to see the Government working in a bipartisan way with the Opposition. I commend the bill, with amendments hopefully, to the House.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (21:45:02):
— In reply: I thank members who contributed tonight, including the member for Blacktown, and Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Public Spaces, who has been involved with the bill from the get-go. I thank members representing the electorates of Dubbo, Mount Druitt, Oxley, Monaro, Kellyville, Charlestown, Wagga Wagga, Campbelltown, Bathurst, Penrith, Balmain, Cessnock, Newtown, Heathcote, Davidson, Granville, Wollondilly, Parramatta, Wakehurst, Newcastle, Castle Hill, South Coast, Lane Cove, Macquarie Fields, Sydney, Leppington, Pittwater, North Shore, Drummoyne, Lake Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Clarence, The Entrance, Upper Hunter, Goulburn and Terrigal. I also acknowledge the cooperation and support of the Leader of the Opposition, who I think set an important example by leading the debate for the Opposition.
I also acknowledge the shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces, the Hon. Scott Farlow, MLC, who I note is currently in the advisers area in this place. The Opposition has acted in good faith throughout the process of helping to design many of the provisions in the bill. The series of discussions between the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister, the Leader of The Nationals and me over time has culminated in a fair, balanced and modernised planning reform bill. As the House is all too familiar, previous journeys to modernise the nearly 50-year-old Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have failed. In my second reading speech to the bill on 17 September 2025 I noted:
With this bill, the Government presents the Parliament with a choice. Members can either ignore the many sources of advice, including the Productivity Commissioner's warning that Sydney will become a "city without grandchildren", or we can act to reverse the trend by making significant reforms to increase housing supply in the years ahead.
Members can either bring communities together in support of more housing and a better planning system to enable it, or they can support self-interest and leave future generations locked out of housing and locked out of New South Wales. Members can either provide opportunities for health workers, teachers, police, firefighters, cleaners and hospitality workers to live closer to their jobs, or they can confine them to hours of travel and time away from their family and community activities every single day. These are the stark choices we now face together. But we also face another choice—keep a convoluted planning system that has lost its sense of proportion or introduce overdue reforms.
Throughout all the briefings and discussions in the development of the bill and since its introduction, I am pleased to report to the House that members have taken the responsible path and overwhelmingly agreed that the New South Wales planning system and its principal enabling Act require modernisation.
Some peak organisations representing their particular interests have been critical that the bill is about more than housing and is some kind of Trojan Horse. The bill was never just about housing. While the Government has always emphasised that amendments to the Act would improve the delivery of housing, the reforms improve many other aspects of the planning system which are needed just as much. We have proposed the reforms so that the nearly 50-year-old Act can meet modern challenges, because the challenges we face are not solely about building more homes. They are about fixing a planning system that is no longer effective to tackle today's challenges, help improve productivity, protect the environment and enable a modern economy and build better communities.
New South Wales needs to coordinate land use, infrastructure and investment more efficiently. A confused and confusing planning system adds to the cost of infrastructure, delays job creation and reduces productivity. Ultimately, it reduces living standards. To put it another way, a process that is longer and guarantees more complex consideration does not guarantee a better result. Over the past half-century, the planning system has become bogged down in processes that are overly complex and often inconsistent. Planners, councils, industry and communities agree it needs improvement. The bill creates a modern, faster and fairer planning system that focuses effort where it matters most: on the highest-impact proposals and on building the homes and infrastructure our communities need. The bill focuses the system on outcomes, not processes.
The changes proposed to the objects seek to better recognise the spectrum of competing public interests and priorities, including the need to provide housing and respond to climate change and resilience. The bill proposes that objects are to be considered together and applied to the extent that they are relevant, allowing decision-makers to respond appropriately to individual circumstances when making a decision. The objects of the planning bill retain promoting the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity, and it contains a range of new measures to achieve this objective. I will be very clear: This bill is not designed to—nor will it—weaken environmental protections. This Government is committed to strong environmental outcomes, as evidenced by the reforms introduced to the Biodiversity Conservation Act earlier this year, among other initiatives, including higher BASIX standards, for instance. The new concurrence powers will remain for the Minister for the Environment, meaning that projects unable to meet their biodiversity offset obligations will continue to be subject to strong environmental oversight. That is a safeguard that this Government introduced Government and will retain.
The Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act will continue to apply in full to all developments. Part 7 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 outlines the biodiversity assessment requirements that apply to planning applications. If a project is likely to significantly affect threatened species or exceed other important thresholds, then a biodiversity assessment report is required. That applies regardless of whether the original project was approved under the Biodiversity Conservation Act or former planning provisions. Those Acts work in harmony with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to provide robust legislative protections for biodiversity, pollution control and environmental performance. Nothing in this bill changes any of that. The new objective (e) in the bill will drive continuous improvement in how we plan for natural hazards and the impacts of climate change.
The Minns Government is committed to protecting the natural environment and promoting ecologically sustainable development. For the first time, the bill proposes to introduce an object on climate change and natural disaster resilience into the EP&A Act to underscore its importance and continue to promote the conservation of threatened species and principles of ecologically sustainable development. In relation to certain bushfire provisions, it is important to emphasise that the bill will not weaken or remove bushfire protections considerations in land use planning, planning assessments or decisions. Importantly, there will continue to be a statutory requirement to assess bushfire hazards, which cannot be bypassed. Amendments relating to bushfire provisions will be moved during consideration in detail. The Government will propose one of the amendments and support others.
The bill creates the power to establish the Development Coordination Authority [DCA], which will become a single front door that centralises agency referrals and advice provided in the development assessment process and resolves conflicting agency advice. It will also address post-consent issues. As highlighted in my second reading speech, the DCA will centralise the State's involvement in planning matters, providing greater efficiency and consistency and clearer outcomes. Efforts have been made to manage and improve coordination over many years. While they have been useful, they have also confirmed the need for more substantive structural reforms to meaningfully reduce administrative burden and, most importantly, drive a cultural change towards delivery and outcomes.
Concerns have been raised about the integrity of the DCA in its assessment and independence of decision‑making. The DCA will include experts across all relevant agencies that will allow it to maintain thorough, robust assessment standards. The DCA will also work with agencies to establish continuous feedback loops, information sharing, secondments and rotations to maintain specialist expertise in both the DCA and agencies. The DCA will be guided by defined considerations in its decision-making, which will be established in collaboration with agencies and based on existing agency standards and guidelines. While the DCA will contain technical capabilities that will allow many inputs to be handled internally, it will work with agencies during implementation to establish when agency input would still be sought, particularly in relation to safety matters. Service level agreements will be established between agencies and the DCA to manage any issues that arise—for example, accessing specialist expert advice from agencies, addressing any disagreements on technical matters or defining escalation pathways for resolving disputes.
The proposed model of the DCA is designed to meet four objectives: issue a single response to concurrence and referrals, substantially reducing the number of interactions and responses on DAs; integrate specialist advice directly into the assessment of SSD projects, reducing assessment time frames and improving the consideration and evaluation of competing priorities; provide a single point of contact for stakeholders, improving service and accountability; drive continuous improvement to processes; work to streamline and unblock the post‑consent phase of development for existing and future projects; and report on the DCA's performance. I re-emphasise that the bill does not lower the standard of assessment, and the DCA will need to carry out the assessment as though it were the RFS acting under the Rural Fires Act, for example. New section 4.47A is proposed to be inserted, which states that clearly. Agencies will continue to be responsible for issuing other approvals and enforcing compliance under their own Acts.
The amendments in this bill should not be understood as allowing developers or proponents of State significant developments to bypass approvals required to protect public and environmental safety in the supply of essential services such as water and wastewater. Concern was raised that some key agencies and entities may not be part of the DCA, such as Transport for NSW, Sydney Trains and classified roads. That is not the case. The transport-related agencies and issues will be an essential part of the DCA. Agencies will retain their legislative functions and responsibilities, including compliance, post-consent approvals and policymaking. They will continue to be responsible for issuing approvals under other Acts following the issue of advice, concurrences and general terms of approval by the DCA. They will also provide advice to the DCA where specialist expertise is not available within the DCA or where the DCA determines that risk cannot be appropriately managed without agency input.
Various industry groups have requested the opportunity to be consulted on the proposed wording of model conditions. The development of standard conditions will be subject to a comprehensive stakeholder engagement. That is to make sure that conditions are practical and enforceable and that they reflect lessons learned. There have also been calls for appeal rights on minor modifications, which will not be necessary for matters that have no environmental impact, aligning with the streamlined intent of the process and avoiding unnecessary duplication in the system. There are currently no appeal rights for complying development, and the bill does not propose to change that. If a variation certificate is refused by the council, the applicant will have the choice of amending their CDC application to meet the development standards or lodging a development application.
Assertions have been made that the bill's reforms open the door to corruption. Those assertions are wrong. In fact, the bill strengthens independence in decision-making. By expanding the use of planning panels, the bill is making sure that decisions are made transparently on their merits and free from political interference. The HDA will now operate with a range of safeguards. I remind members that the HDA does not assess projects. It makes recommendations as an independent body not subject to the direction of the Minister, and its members must report on any conflicts of interest.
The new targeted assessment pathway will require a statement of environmental effects or an environmental impact statement. That will need to address detailed controls and considerations determined through the strategic planning process. It will not apply to complex, high-impact developments such as coalmining or other extractive industries. The Government will move an amendment during the consideration in detail stage of the bill to clarify that beyond doubt. The amendment will address the assertion made by some groups and address the concerns of all. Unlike any other planning pathway, the government of the day will be required to consult with the community before the targeted assessment pathway is activated for a particular development type. This enhancement to transparency and accountability is currently not built into any other pathway—not even complying development or State significant development. It is again important to emphasise that all projects eligible for this pathway must still comply with other relevant legislation, including the Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
Apartment Design Guide
To be clear, the existing provisions of these Acts will continue to apply in full. Before any projects can be made eligible for this process, an explanation of the intended effect must be publicly exhibited, providing transparency and accountability while making sure the community has its say. Definitions for the targeted assessment pathway will be developed through detailed consultation with councils, industry and the community. Public submissions will continue to be considered; however, the matters for consideration will be clearly defined by the relevant State environmental planning policy. The SEPP will also set out how other instruments, such as the development control plans or the will apply under this pathway. This is a pathway that could be used for proposals like the mid-rise pattern book, the rollout of community batteries or upgrades to community sporting facilities. The targeted assessment pathway will not be used for large-scale and high-impact developments such as mining and other industrial projects. These projects will continue to be subject to detailed merit assessment, as is currently the case in the planning system.
The Housing Delivery Authority will be embedded in legislation to give it certainty and enable it to continue delivering supply efficiently, but its role will evolve over time. If the planning system and local government adapt to meet the housing challenge currently before us and deliver the National Housing Accord targets by June 2029, the HDA's direct intervention role will diminish, and that change will be reflected in the eligibility criteria. The HDA will be used when housing can be delivered quickly and where there is clear public benefit. "Use it or lose it" provisions outside the bill will make sure that land enabled for housing supply is actually developed and homes delivered. HDA State significant development consents will be conditioned to be time limited to two years, and concurrent rezonings will be similarly time limited, so that any change in zone or change in development standard is linked to the lapse date of the relevant State significant development consent. The Housing Delivery Authority applies clear criteria to all expressions of interest, including a requirement for a measurable commitment to affordable housing.
In response to concerns from the member for Sydney, I will ask the department to further strengthen the affordable housing criteria and to explore a new criterion relating to master planned locations. These criteria are used to determine whether a proposal should be declared State significant development and eligible for State assessment. When a council has adopted an affordable housing contribution scheme, that policy should still be applied. Where no such policy exists, or where the contribution rate is minimal, the criteria can revert to affordable housing rates set out in the State housing SEPP. There will also be scope to refine other criteria—for example, where a recent master planning process has already taken place. This approach aligns with the existing HDA objective that proposals must demonstrate strategic merit and consistency with relevant strategic plans.
The definition of "development standards" will be clarified to increase certainty and consistency, and to reduce legal challenges to a longstanding issue in the planning system. This will make it easier for applicants and councils to identify in environmental planning instruments development standards that can be varied without the need for debate and court intervention. There has been some concern that this will reduce flexibility in the planning system. However, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure will retain oversight of the new definition of "development standards" to make sure they continue to operate as intended. This work will be carried out in close consultation with councils, industry and other stakeholders to ensure clarity and consistency across the system. A transitional period will allow time for SEPPs and local environment plans to be updated to achieve this aim.
We heard from stakeholders and from many members that our proposed provisions to deal with zombie development consents were welcome but too broad and could have unintended consequences. There was a concern that these powers could allow consent authorities to modify or revoke existing approvals at will, undermining certainty in the planning system. While I believe that the risk of this is extremely low, I acknowledge the feedback and will move amendments to make it absolutely clear that these powers will only apply to true zombie development applications. The amendments will limit the use of unilateral modification and revocation powers to the planning secretary and only for development consents granted more than 25 years ago. Of course, the Government will also consider the recommendations of the Legislative Assembly committee inquiry into this matter when it reports back to Parliament. The intent of this reform is maintained to address long dormant, outdated consents without creating unnecessary concern for valid approvals.
The provisions in the bill will not commence upon assent. Instead, commencement will occur by proclamation in carefully staged phases over the coming months. This deliberate approach means that the necessary implementation work is completed with rigour, with precision and with consultation. In many areas, the finer details of these reforms will be shaped by public exhibition. Before certain provisions take effect, we will seek the views of the community, council and industry. For example, we will exhibit the draft statewide Community Participation Plan, proposed variations to complying development standards, changes to concurrences and referrals along with supporting regulation for the DCA, how we will support the Act's new climate change and natural hazard object, and development types proposed for targeted assessment.
The exhibitions will be rolled out progressively. They will provide a vital opportunity for stakeholders to engage with the reforms, offer feedback and prepare for the challenges ahead. The existing checks and balances, including the Independent Planning Commission [IPC] and the Land and Environment Court, will continue to operate to safeguard environmental and community outcomes. Once again, I emphasise that the bill has been carefully designed with guardrails to make sure that all current environmental legislation remains enforceable and expert advice remains central to planning decisions.
I will address a couple of specific matters that members raised in the course of the second reading debate. In response to concerns of the member for Sydney, I will provide the following replies. The member has requested all mining modifications go to the Independent Planning Commission. This is not a legislative matter. The Government has already committed to revising the Future of Coal Statement to improve the framework for mining approvals. It is worth noting that in 2019 the NSW Productivity Commission recommended that all modification applications be removed from the functions of the IPC. Appeal rights for proponents and objectors remain available, ensuring accountability and transparency in the process.
The member for Sydney raised concerns that clause 65A will stop the consideration of cumulative impacts from mining projects. I can assure the House that mining projects will continue to be subject to rigorous, science‑based assessment. There will remain a clear requirement to assess the cumulative impacts of State significant development, including greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and impacts on biodiversity values. The member for Sydney also raised concerns about changes to section 4.15 of the Act. The reforms focus assessment effort on significant impacts so that minor issues no longer absorb disproportionate time and resources. Too often, planners and decision-makers are required to assess minor matters that have little bearing on the final outcome. For larger projects like State significant developments, these changes will help narrow down key issues early in the process, improving efficiency and certainty for all parties. This introduces long overdue proportionality into the system and encourages planners to focus on outcomes rather than procedure. It is about empowering professionals to use their judgement, their education, their skills and their direct effort where it matters most.
Lastly, the bill introduces a regulation-making power to clarify the matters that must be considered under section 4.15 of the Act. The member for Sydney has raised concerns about this. The power gives the government of the day the flexibility to address interpretation issues without requiring legislative amendment each time. As planning challenges evolve—from new environmental risks to emerging technologies—the regulations can be updated quickly to keep the system responsive and effective. This change will improve clarity, transparency and accountability in decision-making, while reducing unnecessary legal disputes about procedural interpretation.
In respect of the concerns of the member for Coffs Harbour about bushfires, the new SEPP will strengthen and simplify bushfire protection for development on bushfire-prone land, effectively replacing section 4.14 of the Act with a clearer, more consistent framework. It will be developed in close partnership with the RFS to make sure that the policy reflects on-the-ground expertise and operational realities. By setting out specific risk-based requirements and clear assessment criteria, the SEPP will allow the RFS to focus its attention on genuinely high-risk proposals and to progressively remove unnecessary concurrences for routine, low-risk development applications [DAs]. The end goal is a smarter, more targeted system, one that continues to protect people and property from bushfire while also speeding up housing delivery and cutting red tape for low‑risk developments.
As the bill moves into consideration in detail to consider amendments, some of which the Government will support and others it will not, I should for completeness counter another criticism about consultation on the bill. The Government, with the Opposition's support, could have introduced the bill and dealt with it in all stages on 17 September. We deliberately did not do that. I took the view that members of this House and the other place, as well as others, should have the opportunity to assess and scrutinise the bill over the weeks from the last sitting to this one. The Government wanted to place a bill on the table that represented its view of why the planning reform is important and how it would be achieved.ne
In the weeks since its introduction, my office and I have engaged in briefings and discussions on the bill with members of the crossbench in this House and the other place, and with numerous stakeholders. The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure has consulted with over 70 organisations and briefed more than 500 people. While there are quibbles over some details, I am pleased to report to the House that the consultations and briefings with stakeholders on the bill have been generally positive, the most contentious concerns relating to environmental protection and bushfire controls, which I hope I have addressed in this contribution.
Nonetheless, there may remain a minority who will never be convinced that the current planning system requires reform. They may remain unconvinced of this Government's determination to modernise the planning system and the principal Act. They may remain convinced that the system should remain bogged down in process rather than focused on outcomes. They may remain convinced that we should continue to bog the system to a standstill, fighting over 90 per cent of applications rather than concentrating on the major projects. Under a reformed planning system, some of those projects may get approved and others simply will not. What those projects will get is a quicker response while undergoing a comprehensive assessment with all current environmental protections and safeguards applying as they do now. Some stakeholders remain convinced that the planning system should continue to be adversarial, besotted with argument and conflict. While all stakeholders can and should provide their respective comments and criticisms on the reforms, it remains the case that it falls to us collectively in this Parliament to ultimately determine the fate of the bill.
Before I conclude, I wish to recognise and thank my departmental officials Clay Preshaw, Matt Riley, Kiersten Fishburn, Monica Gibson, David Gainsford, Janine Lonergan, Aoife Wynter, Brendan Jenkins, Campbell Green, Kim Leliar, Kirsty Thomas, Ashlee Adams, Angel Troke, Karma Eddison-Cogan, Phil Nevill and Andre Szczepanski for their collective work on the preparation of the bill, the briefings they provided and their advice during discussions with members of the Opposition, members of the crossbench and stakeholders. I also thank my hardworking staff, my chief of staff Paul Levins, my deputy chief of staff Gino Mandarino, senior policy advisers Emma Dymock, Jacob White and Caitlin Roodenrys, media advisers Alexie Hamilton and Jenny Archdall, and Kylee Vanderheyden, who has played a game of diary Tetris to organise and make sure that as many people as possible were briefed as often as they needed. I also acknowledge the departmental liaison officers in my office, Natalie Camilleri, Rachelle Abou Saleh, Katie Healey and Jeremy Martin. It is no easy task modernising an Act of nearly 50 years standing.
In my second reading speech I said that, almost 46 years ago, the then Minister for Planning and Environment, Paul Landa, said in the second reading debate on the then Environmental Assessment Bill and related bills that one of the objectives of the bill was to "provide positive guidelines for the development process, to speed up decision-making, to foster investment and facilitate economic growth". This bill focuses us on those simple but critical aspirations. It is no simple technical update to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is a necessary reset of the way the planning system and its pathways work in New South Wales. It tackles the practical delays that are holding up the delivery of homes and job-creating projects and driving up costs. It removes the unnecessary red tape that has grown over decades, which may have had a purpose at a given point in time but has not stood the test of time. It simplifies decision-making and makes sure that good development—development that has overall benefit—does not get stuck in the system but is still assessed properly.
The reforms are practical, focused, balanced and overdue. They reflect what industry, councils, planners and communities have been telling all governments for years: The planning system is too slow, too complex and far too uncertain. The bill creates a planning system that is faster, fairer and more capable of delivering the homes, jobs, productivity, investment and infrastructure that New South Wales needs, without overturning the fundamentals. The reforms to the planning system and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are practical, focused, balanced and overdue. I commend the bill to the House.
TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Mr Clayton Barr):
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to.
Consideration in detail requested by Ms Kobi Shetty, Mr Gurmesh Singh, Mr James Griffin, Ms Jacqui Scruby, Mr Alex Greenwich, Mr Michael Regan and Mr Paul Scully.
Consideration in Detail
The SPEAKER:
By leave: I will deal with the bill in groups of clauses and schedules. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 3 be agreed to.
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (22:16:03):
By leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2025-211H in globo:
Objects of Act
No. 1
Page 3, Schedule 1[1], proposed section 1.3(a), lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
(a)to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and other resources,
Objects of Act
No. 2
Page 3, Schedule 1[1], proposed section 1.3(g), line 18. Insert "including the protection of the health and safety of the occupants of buildings," after "built environments,".
The bill, in its current form, waters down the objects of the Act by removing protection of the environment, proper management, development and conservation of our natural and other resources, and protection of the health and safety of residents in their homes. The objects of the Act provide the high-level considerations that consent authorities must use to apply and interpret the laws, and they underpin existing case law. At a time when climate change and housing affordability are the biggest crises facing the community, we should not be removing key objects in our planning system that signal the importance of planning decisions to possibly manage, develop and conserve our resources, protect the environment and ensure new and existing homes are safe and healthy. Such changes will not improve housing affordability. We must remember that housing affordability is not just about being able to afford to buy cheap housing; it is about ensuring homes are affordable to live in. If homes are damp and poorly ventilated, have costly defects to fix or are in regions with no jobs, services or infrastructure, they are not affordable.
My amendments will reinstate protecting health and safety of residents in their homes in the objects to signal that when homes are approved, we expect them to be liveable and not erode the liveability of neighbouring homes. The State's natural resources belong to the public and should be managed, developed and conserved for public benefit. Climate change is affecting everyone and we need to responsibly manage resources in that context. There are currently 17 coal projects in the planning pipeline and, if all are approved, New South Wales will not achieve its greenhouse gas emission targets. That would not constitute responsible resource management. My amendments will restore the proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and other resources. The amendments complement the amendments of the member for Pittwater and I commend them to the House.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:18:36):
— I indicate the Government's support for those amendments.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet c2025-211H of the member for Sydney be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to
.
Ms JACQUI SCRUBY (Pittwater) (22:19:14):
I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-226A:
Objects of Act
No. 1
Page 3, Schedule 1[1], proposed section 1.3(d), line 11. Omit "to provide for". Insert instead "to protect the environment, including".
This amendment concerns the objects of the Act, which is a critical section of the legislation that reflects the intention of this Government's reform. We heard from members tonight that it is not the intention to erode environmental controls or the role of the Rural Fire Service, for instance, in preventing developments in bushfire areas. The Minister reiterated that in his reply, but the legislation must speak for itself. When it comes to the bill's amendments to the objects of the Act, it is clear that erosion of environmental considerations will not be unintended but may be by design.
The current Environmental Planning and Assessment Act includes terms that the bill seeks to amend and remove, including "a better environment", "proper management, development and conservation of the State's natural and other resources" and "to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants, ecological communities and their habitats", which is the subject of my amendment. However, under this bill the Government seeks to amend that object by creating a similar, but vastly different, section 1.3 (d), severely narrowing the environmental protection intentions. The bill proposes not to protect all native species and their habitats but only to provide for the conservation of threatened species of native animals and plants and ecological communities and their habitats. It narrows the object from protection of the environment, which is a broad protection that extends to biodiversity and all its flora and fauna, to only threatened species and their habitats.
My amendment seeks to restore the existing object of the legislation and its broadness. Without this amendment a habitat would only be worthy of protection under the objects of the Act if it was a habitat of a threatened species. That change is radical and unacceptable and cannot be considered a modernisation of the objects of the bill because eroding environmental protections does not reflect community expectation, nor Australia's international 30 by 30 target commitment to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia's landmass and 30 per cent of Australia's marine areas by 2030.
NSW biodiversity outlook report 2024
Whilst it is a terrible reality that in New South Wales we have over 1,000 threatened species and 78 already declared extinct, we will have many more if we do not actively take steps to protect those that are not yet threatened. Finally, I highlight the , which shows that biodiversity is on the decline in New South Wales. The report highlights habitat loss as the key pressure on biodiversity across the State. Several key findings include only 50 per cent of threatened species are expected to survive the next 100 years, and 29 per cent remains of the capacity of habitat to support native species.
I am also cognisant that the objects of the Act set up the parameters for all developments in New South Wales. Whether that is a huge housing development or a small one, a windfarm or a coalmine, we must seek to protect all native biodiversity in consideration and interpretation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. I share the serious concerns of the Environmental Defenders Office that we are witnessing retrograde steps, but this amendment will reinstate the environmental protections under the Act and prevent unintended environmental consequences.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:22:34):
— I indicate the Government's support for this amendment.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-226A of the member for Pittwater be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (22:23:05):
By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2025-220E in globo:
Minister not accepting recommendation from Housing Delivery Authority
No. 1
Page 6, Schedule 1[16], proposed section 2.11C. Insert after line 14—
(2)If the Minister decides not to accept a recommendation of the Housing Delivery Authority made under subsection (1)(b)(ii), (iii) or (iv), the Minister must publish notice of the decision, and the reasons for the decision, on the NSW planning portal.
Development Coordination Authority—annual report
No. 2
Page 7, Schedule 1[16], proposed section 2.11G. Insert after line 25—
(5)The Planning Secretary must, in the annual report of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, report on the operations of the Development Coordination Authority.
Community participation plans
No. 3
Page 11, Schedule 1[29]. Insert after line 39—
(1A)The Planning Secretary must arrange for the community participation plan to be published on the NSW legislation website.
Interpretation Act 1987
(1B)The , sections 40 and 41 apply to a community participation plan in the same way as the sections apply to a statutory rule.
Expedited amendments of environmental planning instruments
No. 4
Page 13, Schedule 1[42], proposed section 3.22(1)(d), lines 21 and 22. Omit "necessary or convenient". Insert instead "reasonably necessary".
I acknowledge the various contributions of members, and the presence of the shadow Minister from the other place. I will outline the four amendments the Opposition is putting forward, which are pretty self‑explanatory, straightforward and commonsense. Amendment No. 1 will ensure greater rigour around the decision of the Minister with respect to recommendations from the Housing Delivery Authority. The Housing Delivery Authority is an advisory body, but the Minister is still empowered to make the declarations of State significance. The Opposition believes that it is a prudent check and balance to ensure that if the Minister does not accept the recommendation of the Housing Delivery Authority and deviates from its recommendation, the Minister must publish reasons for their decision to improve transparency and accountability.
Amendment No. 2 relates to the introduction of the Development Coordination Authority. We believe there is an opportunity for the Government to provide transparency and information about its performance and progress. The amendment applies to the Development Coordination Authority an identical reporting mechanism to the Housing Delivery Authority under this Act. We believe this is an important accountability mechanism and will provide the community with more information about the success and operation of the Development Coordination Authority.
Amendment No. 3 relates to community participation plans. The Coalition believes that there is benefit in the adoption of a Statewide Community Participation Plan, but we want to ensure that there is a check and balance attached to the plan in the form of Parliament retaining some oversight of its development. A multitude of items need to be considered under section 2.23 in the development of that community participation plan, and many steps need to be undertaken under section 2.25 of the Act in the adoption of the Statewide Community Participation Plan. However, none of these steps involves the Parliament. The planning secretary must be allowed to undertake their work, but we believe, particularly in this substantial reduction from over 100 different community participation plans to one singular plan, that there must be a level of oversight for this Parliament. We move the amendment accordingly.
Finally, while embedding the Housing Delivery Authority's role in legislation does not change its role substantially from its current status, this provision of the bill provides it an extraordinary power to not comply with the provisions of the Act in amending an environmental planning instrument with only a test of "convenience" attached. The Coalition believes that this is too low a bar for such an extraordinary provision to be sought. It is more than the power that is granted to the NSW Reconstruction Authority. Quite simply, it is overreach. As such, the amendment proposes a test that an amendment is "reasonably necessary". This is a higher bar and a requirement rather than pure convenience, which is really no limitation at all.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:26:29):
— I indicate the Government's support for these amendments, which have been worked through in discussion with the Opposition.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet c2025-220E be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:27:12):
— By leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 on sheet c2025-215F in globo:
Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land
No. 1
Page 15, Schedule 1[61], lines 32 and 33. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
[61]Section 4.14 Consultation and development consent—certain bush fire prone land
Omit section 4.14(1) and (1A). Insert instead—
(1)The consent authority, before granting development consent for the carrying out of development on bush fire prone land, being land for the time being recorded as bush fire prone land on a relevant map certified under section 10.3(2), must consider the relevant Bush Fire Protection Planning guide.
(1A)Subsection (1) does not apply to an application for consent to carry out the following development—
(a)development for a subdivision of land that could lawfully be used for residential or rural residential purposes,
(b)development for a special fire protection purpose.
[61A]Section 4.14(2)
Insert in alphabetical order—
relevant Bush Fire Protection Planning guide
means—
Planning for Bush Fire Protection
(a)the version, as prescribed by the regulations, of the document entitled prepared by the NSW Rural Fire Service in cooperation with the Department, or
(b)if another document is prescribed by the regulations for this definition—the prescribed document.
Targeted assessment development
No. 2
Page 18, Schedule 1[68], proposed section 4.20A. Insert after line 19—
(5)Despite subsection (1), a State environmental planning policy must not declare the following development to be targeted assessment development—
(a)development that is designated development,
(b)development that would be designated development if section 4.10(2) did not apply.
Revocation or modification of development consent
No. 3
Page 26, Schedule 1[107], proposed section 4.57(1)(a), lines 5 and 6. Omit all words on the lines. Insert instead—
(a)the Planning Secretary, having regard to—
(i)the provisions of a proposed environmental planning instrument, or
(ii)the provisions of an existing environmental planning instrument, but only in relation to a development consent granted at least the prescribed period before the Planning Secretary proposes to exercise a function under this section, or
Revocation or modification of development consent
No. 4
Page 26, Schedule 1[107], proposed section 4.57(1)(b), line 9. Omit "an existing or". Insert instead "a".
Revocation or modification of development consent
No. 5
Page 37, Schedule 2. Insert after line 3—
[11A]Section 116A
Insert after section 116—
116ARevocation or modification of development consent
For the Act, section 4.57(1)(a)(ii), the period of 25 years is prescribed.
These are the Government amendments which I touched on in my second reading reply. I will make clear what they relate to. Amendment No. 1 relates to bushfire-prone lands and consultation and development consent. In relation to section 4.14, this amendment works with the amendment that the member for Wakehurst will move shortly with respect to those bushfire provisions. Amendment No. 2 relates to targeted assessment. Through this amendment the Government intends to make absolutely clear the application of the targeted assessment pathway. The pathway was only ever a middle ground between complying development and full merit‑assessed development assessment. It could never and would never be able to be used on larger projects such as resources projects, large renewal energy projects and the like. But for an abundance of clarity, the Government is making sure that this targeted assessment pathway cannot be used for development that is designated development or development that would be designated development if section 4.10 (2) did not apply.
Amendments Nos 3, 4 and 5 relate to the provisions around zombie DAs, which I touched on in my speech in reply to the second reading debate. As I indicated, the drafting of the bill unintentionally extended those provisions beyond where the Government had intended them to work. These amendments reduce that power to be held only by the New South Wales Government and puts a time period on the age of a development consent. This makes sure that the provision for what would truly be considered by most people to be a zombie development consent—or a historical development consent, if you are the member for Cessnock—can only be used by the planning secretary.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that Government amendments Nos 1 to 5 on sheet c2025-215F be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (22:30:28):
I move Opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet c2025-220E:
Declaration of targeted assessment development—submission period
No. 5
Page 18, Schedule 1[68], proposed section 4.20A(3)(b), line 17. Omit all words on the line. Insert instead—
(b)to invite the public to make written submissions to the Minister on the proposed policy within a specified period after the date on which the explanation was published, being a period of not less than 28 days, and
(c)to consider the written submissions received by the Minister within the specified period.
This amendment ensures that under a targeted assessment development there is sufficient time for up-front planning and consideration by the Minister in making any applicable State environmental planning policy that applies with the exhibition through an explanation of intended effect and consultation with the community. It is the Opposition's understanding from the Government that this was to be included with the community consultation plan and that in many, if not most, instances exhibition consultation will be conducted for a period longer than 28 days to ensure strategic planning is done well and up-front, with community consultation at its heart. However, for an abundance of clarity, the Opposition is moving this amendment to enshrine this important community consultation in the legislation in order to enhance community confidence in these provisions and allow adequate time for the community to have their say and provide their input into this important strategic planning process.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:31:40):
— It was always the Government's intention for these provisions to be the case, so the Government will support this clarifying amendment.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that Opposition amendment No. 5 on sheet c2025-220E be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr MICHAEL REGAN (Wakehurst) (22:32:02):
I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-227A:
Bush fire prone land
No. 1
Page 30, Schedule 1[152], lines 32 and 33. Omit all words on the lines.
This amendment stops the removal of section 10.3 regarding bushfire-prone land mapping from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Section 10.3 requires councils to map bushfire-prone land in their local government area every five years. The RFS provides guidelines, and certifies that maps meet those guidelines. Bushfire-prone land mapping is important because it provides the trigger for applying systemic scrutiny of bushfire risk to rezoning proposals and development applications. Mapping is the foundation of consistent, risk-based assessment, and this amendment secures it in statute. This is a significant, and I thank the Government for listening to feedback that removing this section would be unwise.
Other States, including Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania, have bushfire-prone land mapping as a statutory requirement, and New South Wales should too. I originally proposed an amendment that kept bushfire‑prone mapping in legislation and also shifted responsibility for mapping entirely to the RFS in consultation with councils, rather than being initiated by local councils. This is not where the Government landed, but it remains my position. It is clear that in some councils, there is a lack of resources and/or capability to update maps. In others, there is inertia to provide for the continuous changes that are necessary. The RFS is best placed for this role, with the expertise, capacity and resources to undertake mapping across the State. This shift would also be consistent with the findings and recommendations of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, which noted that mapping should be centralised and placed within fire services.
Notwithstanding that, I move this amendment to omit from the bill the removal of section 10.3 to preserve bushfire-prone land mapping in the Act, providing important certainty and continuity for industry and the community. I plead with the Government to fund and coordinate updated mapping across the State to ensure that it is accurate.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:34:21):
— I thank the member for Wakehurst for moving this amendment. I also note the good conversations I have had with the Minister for Emergency Services and RFS Commissioner Trent Curtin in arriving at this amendment. It is important that the Government—particularly the Minister for Emergency Services and I—continues to work to make sure that good, regularly updated and clear bushfire guidelines are published on land use planning and mapping arrangements. As the member for Leppington pointed out in his contribution during the second reading debate, maps and instruments not being updated regularly can cause the problem of a map appearing to show an area as having denser bushland than it once had or, similarly, an area where bushland has grown up not being mapped at all. I thank the member for Wakehurst, the RFS Commissioner and the Minister for Emergency Services for the constructive discussions they had with the Government that have allowed us to arrive at this point.
Mr MATT CROSS (Davidson) (22:35:52):
On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the member for Wakehurst for moving this very sensible amendment. Like him, I live in a community that is surrounded by bushland. Bushfires are clearly very concerning to all members of our communities, so this is a very sensible amendment. I thank the Government for agreeing to the amendment.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that amendment No.1 on sheet c2025-227A of the member for Wakehurst be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr JAMES GRIFFIN (Manly) (22:36:36):
I move Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-220E:
Regular reviews of amendments about Housing Delivery Authority
No. 6
Page 41, Schedule 2[39]. Insert after line 39—
Regular reviews of amendments about Housing Delivery Authority
(1)A Joint Select Committee of the Parliament must be established in relation to this Act.
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Act 2025
(2)The Joint Select Committee must undertake reviews of the amendments made to the Act by the relating to the Housing Delivery Authority to determine whether—
(a)the policy objectives of the amendments remain valid, and
(b)the term of the Act, as amended, remain appropriate for securing the objectives.
(3)A review must be undertaken as soon as practicable after each period of 3 years from the commencement of the amendments.
(4)A report on the outcome of a review must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of each period of 3 years.
(5)The Joint Select Committee must consist of the following members—
(a)a chairperson who must be a member of, and appointed by, the Legislative Assembly,
(b)5 other members who are members of, and appointed by, the Legislative Assembly,
(c)4 members who are members of, and appointed by, the Legislative Council.
Not that we should have favourites, but this is clearly the best amendment of the evening.
Mr Paul Scully:
It's about to be amended.
The SPEAKER:
The Minister will come to order.
Mr JAMES GRIFFIN:
It is a really collaborative amendment. The Housing Delivery Authority has not been operational long enough to see projects come to fruition, which is something we would all wish to change. Not one project through the Housing Development Authority State significant development pathway has yet completed the approval process and been determined. To date, assessment pathways have been approved, but not homes. It is the Coalition's view, and that of many stakeholders, including Local Government NSW and the Planning Institute of Australia, that it is too early to make concrete judgements on the effectiveness of the Housing Delivery Authority, albeit that we wish it well. When the Housing Delivery Authority was established, it was explicitly tied to the National Housing Accord. The Government determined that the expression of interest process would be open through the housing accord period and outlined:
The aim of this process is to encourage and identify major housing proposals and deliver more homes within the Housing Accord period by assessing and determining high-yield housing projects through the SSD pathway.
Its first criteria objective was to deliver more homes within the housing accord period. As this is the case, the Coalition, along with stakeholders like Local Government NSW, believe it is appropriate to review the operation of the Housing Delivery Authority by the conclusion of the housing accord period. As such, this amendment seeks to establish a joint select committee constituted of five members from this place, of which one will be the chair, and four members from the other place to review the amendments with respect to the Housing Delivery Authority to determine that its policy objectives remain valid and its terms in the Act, as amended, remain appropriate.
The Opposition understands that the member for Sydney will be moving further amendments to the terms of reference for this committee, which we support. The committee will undertake its review within three years of the commencement of the amendments and table its report to Parliament within 12 months. In the first instance that will ensure that the review is commenced before the completion of the National Housing Accord by 30 June 2029.
Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) (22:39:15):
I thank the Opposition for moving its amendment to the bill, and I thank the member for Manly and the Hon. Scott Farlow for working with me on my amendment. We all want the amendments to the legislation that we are dealing with today to be successful. We want them to deliver an increase in housing supply, particularly affordable housing supply, in New South Wales. For that to happen, oversight is important, and this amendment is about that. As the member for Manly flagged, I will seek to amend the oversight of the joint select committee with an inclusion. I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-228C to Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025‑220E:
Regular reviews of amendments about Housing Delivery Authority
No. 1
In Opposition Amendment No 6, proposed subsection (2)(b), omit "objectives.". Insert instead—
objectives, and
(c)the Housing Delivery Authority has increased housing supply and the timely delivery of housing and improved housing affordability.
It is important that the Housing Delivery Authority [HDA] knows what job we are giving it in this place. We want to make sure that the powers it has been given are helping it to fulfil its role. The challenge for the Sydney electorate at the moment is, though we respect and appreciate density, we are losing it to unaffordable homes. I have walked around areas like Millers Point with the Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading. We saw firsthand housing that was once social or affordable converted into short-term housing; it was basically a series of hotels. We saw a number of homes left empty as capital gains assets or that were being used for negative gearing purposes. We are dealing with challenges in the inner city that are about how the current State and Federal laws facilitate unaffordable housing. We need to make sure that the powers the HDA is given help us to increase affordable housing.
Importantly, I am moving the amendment to further strengthen the statutory review of this joint select committee. The Coalition's proposal provides for a majority of Legislative Assembly members on the joint select committee, which is important. Tonight we are also showing the Hon. Scott Farlow, who is in the advisers area, how efficiently this House works in considering amendments and how collegial we are in working to improve legislation. I commend the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and his staff for their genuine and serious engagement over many weeks with me and with others. I say the same to the Hon. Scott Farlow, to the Opposition, and to other crossbench members, who have all genuinely worked hard to improve this legislation. My amendment will ensure that has worked. Hopefully, it will lead to the HDA saying, "Yes, we have delivered this much housing. We have improved housing affordability. But here are ways the Parliament can go even further."
The SPEAKER:
The member for Sydney—and all other members—will not indulge in baiting members of the other House during debate.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:43:03):
— The Speaker will appreciate that baiting the upper House is muscle memory for most of us, so we have to do it occasionally. The Government has worked with the Opposition and the member for Sydney in arriving at this point. Obviously various timelines were proposed. It had always been the Government's intention to review the HDA and to keep it under continuous review. Before the HDA was established—and it was opened to expressions of interest on 8 January of this year—the key tenets that the Premier and I put in place on its operation were transparency, accountability and oversight. We maintain that this will allow the Parliament to look at its ongoing operation. But the timeline was the important consideration. It is true that at this stage no projects have been HDA approved. Some 261 projects have been declared with more than 91,000 homes between them. Secretary's environmental assessment requirements, or SEARs, have been issued on 101 projects and 10 applications are under assessment. Between them, that is 2,400 homes. It is true that at the moment it would be premature to undertake a detailed review using the time and resources of the Parliament. However, it is prudent to consider these matters in terms of their ongoing effectiveness.
It is also important that the upper House gets a rest from the number of inquiries it currently has to undertake. We know the pressures that members of the other place are under, which is why a combination—with a majority in the lower House—was the more sensible and prudent way to undertake the review. The Government supports both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that amendment No. 1 on sheet c2025-228C of the member for Sydney, being an amendment to Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-220E, be agreed to.
Amendment of the member for Sydney to Opposition amendment No. 6 agreed to.
The SPEAKER:
The question now is that Opposition amendment No. 6 on sheet c2025-220E as amended be agreed to.
Opposition amendment No. 6 as amended agreed to.
Mr GURMESH SINGH (Coffs Harbour) (22:45:57):
By leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 24 on sheet c2025-221D in globo:
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 1
Page 4, Schedule 1[6] and [7], lines 35 to 41. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 2
Page 5, Schedule 1[10]–[15], lines 6 to 17. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 3
Pages 7–11, Schedule 1[17]–[26], line 45 on page 7 to line 29 on page 11. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 4
Pages 12–13, Schedule 1[34]–[39], line 14 on page 12 to line 6 on page 13. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 5
Page 13, Schedule 1[44] and [45], lines 26 to 31. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 6
Pages 13–14, Schedule 1[47]–[48], line 36 on page 13 to line 2 on page 14. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 7
Pages 14–15, Schedule 1[50]–[54], line 7 on page 14 to line 15 on page 15. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 8
Pages 20–21, Schedule 1[76]–[81], line 33 on page 20 to line 13 on page 21. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 9
Page 27, Schedule 1[119] and [120], lines 6 to 9. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 10
Page 27, Schedule 1[125] and [126], lines 33 to 36. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 11
Pages 29–30, Schedule 1[133]–[147], line 6 on page 29 to line 11 on page 30. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 12
Page 30, Schedule 1[150] and [151], lines 28 to 31. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 13
Page 31, Schedule 1[159] and [160], lines 30 to 33. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 14
Pages 31–32, Schedule 1[162]–[169], line 37 on page 31 to line 12 on page 32. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 15
Pages 32–33, Schedule 1[171]–[177], line 20 on page 32 to line 6 on page 33. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 16
Page 33, Schedule 1[180]–[183], lines 31 to 38. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 17
Page 34, Schedule 1[185]–[188], lines 5 to 22. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 18
Page 36, Schedule 2[1] and [2], lines 3 to 9. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 19
Page 36, Schedule 2[4]–[8], lines 22 to 35. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 20
Page 37, Schedule 2[11]–[13], lines 2 to 9. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 21
Pages 38–39, Schedule 2[20]–[33], line 3 on page 38 to line 2 on page 39. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 22
Page 39, Schedule 2[37] and [38], lines 13 to 16. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 23
Pages 39 and 40, Schedule 2[39], lines 26 on page 39 to line 32 on page 40. Omit all words on the lines.
Sydney district and regional planning panels
No. 24
Pages 41 and 42, Schedule 2[39], lines 40 on page 41 to line 16 on page 42. Omit all words on the lines.
The Opposition raises particular concern about the proposal to abolish regional panels and the regionally significant development pathway. The clear view among stakeholders is that this change is ill considered. From Local Government NSW to the Institute of Architects, the Planning Institute of Australia, the Property Council and the Urban Taskforce, the message has been consistent and clear: Withdrawing regional panels will weaken, not strengthen, our planning system. Under the Government's proposal, councils or local planning panels will assume greater power and responsibility over large and complex developments. While that might sound like a way to improve responsiveness, that is, quite frankly, a fallacy. In reality, it will lead to greater inconsistency between councils—in standards, in capacity, and in the level of expertise applied to major assessments. Many rural and regional councils, through no fault of their own, simply do not have the specialist expertise or resources required to properly assess large‑scale or technically complex development applications.
Regional panels were established precisely to address that challenge by providing access to consistent, independent and expert decision‑making across the State. If these panels are removed, councils inevitably will face pressure to engage consultants, seek additional advice, train staff and absorb higher administrative costs. In other words, it will make the system more fragmented, not more efficient. There is also a serious risk that the independence and transparency we currently enjoy will be compromised. Local panels, by design, are more closely tied to their council areas. With that proximity comes the potential for greater political influence over planning decisions. Regional panels provide an essential safeguard—a buffer that ensures decisions are made on merit, in the public interest and according to consistent principles.
The Government has stated that it is not prepared to walk away from this reform. The Opposition believes that position is a mistake. Therefore, the Opposition is putting forward an amendment that would retain the existing regional panels and the regionally significant development pathway. We are certainly open to change. However, any reform must be grounded in consultation, evidence and practicality. Clearly, more work is needed with stakeholders across the planning, development and local government sectors before such a major structural shift is undertaken.
The regional panels have served New South Wales well. They have built credibility and trust by ensuring major projects are assessed independently, efficiently and fairly. Removing them now would be a step backwards. I urge the Government to reconsider this aspect of the bill and work collaboratively to achieve a planning system that is genuinely simpler, faster and better—not one that risks inconsistency, politicisation and delay.
Mr PAUL SCULLY (WollongongMinister for Planning and Public Spaces) (22:48:22):
— As the member for Coffs Harbour indicated in his address, the Government has not been able to agree to the amendments. The member for Coffs Harbour will not be surprised that the Government will maintain its position as presented in the original bill. The transition from regional panels to local panels will be staged and will include council engagement, to put at ease the minds of those members who raised this issue in their contributions. As I also indicated in my speech in reply, the changes to be introduced should the bill be successful will not commence on assent but on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation. In other words, this is a staged introduction of the changes. It is a very deliberate staged introduction to make sure that the reforms are bedded down and work properly. The staged approach will provide time for councils to have input into the establishment and for the Government to roll out operational and governance improvements.
The implementation will include support for councils. The Government will work through the details of that through the implementation period. Where joint local planning panels are being constituted by the secretary of the department, the department will continue the secretariat function for these, as it does for regional panels. Those concerns expressed by a number of members about shifting costs will be addressed as part of the implementation. As I indicated, the Government will not and cannot support the amendment. It supports the provisions contained in the original bill.
The SPEAKER:
The question is that Opposition amendments Nos 1 to 24 on sheet c2025-221D be agreed to. A division has been called for. In accordance with the earlier resolution of the House, the conduct of the division is deferred until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 16 October 2025.
Search
Call 02 9909 2594
northshore@parliament.nsw.gov.au