|
Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008 |
|
Monday, 02 June 2008 |
|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.39 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2008. I state at the outset that I do not pretend to be an expert on planning or planning systems, but I know what my community has told me about this legislation. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Pittwater, who has significant knowledge and expertise in this area. I commend him for his contribution to debate on this bill. Having reviewed the legislation I have a strong fear that our local community will be sidelined in all future planning decisions, and all communities will be treated very much as one. That is representative of the Manly community and I am sure it is representative of many other communities.
I view the Manly community as unique and I am sure that all members view their communities as unique areas that should be considered carefully. Some good provisions in this bill will attempt to change the planning process and identify problem areas that require to be changed. However, this bill does not provide solutions to all those problems. Having looked at the legislation I am aware that it increases problems relating to issues such as red tape. The bill will attempt to smooth out development applications and afford closer scrutiny of exempt and complying development applications—something that is long overdue. The Government must smooth out, enhance and streamline exempt and complying development applications but it must not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Community members have written to me expressing fear about these legislative proposals. I will not read out every letter that I have received but they have said that they fear they will have sun one day and two-storey extensions the next. There is no community consultation and the local community is diminished because people can do whatever they like within the guidelines. One of the shortcomings of this legislation is that the Government has not consulted the community about it. I agree with the sentiments expressed by local mayor, Peter Macdonald, and I have spoken to council seeking its views. Peter Macdonald said that community members were concerned about the Government's move to give more power to private certifiers as they were not accountable and there was a perceived conflict of interest.
Ultimately, the problems that are created by private certifiers end up in council anyway. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest. These people operate independently; there is no sense of election; they are accountable to no-one; and, ultimately, their bills are paid by those who are seeking approvals. I believe that people in that position should not be given more power; rather they should be given less. I refer members to development issues in Wollongong and to public and community perception of a conflict of interest. That is a good example of a distorted process resulting in bad planning outcomes. I agree with the views of my local mayor. If we give powers to private certifiers who oppose this legislation it is open to manipulation and corruption.
There is real community concern about the Government's lack of consultation in relation to this issue. The Government must take into account and focus on the views and concerns expressed by the Local Government Association. It should not be afraid of consultation, even if it takes more time to achieve an outcome that is more aligned with community interest. Legislation creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy. I read from a submission prepared by Manly Council that states:
Many of the proposed reforms would add to the complexity of the system by increasing the number of regulations and regulatory bodies such as the joint planning panels ... planning arbitrators and independent hearing assessment panels ... all of which require administration and funding of their operations.
The legislation makes reference to a whole range of regulatory bodies such as the Planning Assessment Commission, joint regional planning panels, independent hearing and assessment panels, planning arbitrators, review panels, et cetera. Effectively, this new process will duplicate the existing framework, remove significant power from the local community, and centralise power in the Minister. Is that a good thing? Will the Minister for Planning state in reply to debate on this bill who will appoint people to these individual panels? There is no longer a need for the local community to be involved in everything.
This new process will centralise power in the Minister, no-one will be accountable for these panels, and there will be a huge impost on the community, as ratepayers will clearly have to pick up the costs. The legislation does not make it clear who will be appointed to these panels and the community has expressed concern about the Minister's unfettered power.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Minister will have an opportunity to reply to debate.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I look forward to the Minister's response to that issue. Communities are concerned about the Minister's power to establish the panels proposed in this legislation, which will result in reduced accountability and scrutiny and a bypassing of the views of those communities. The shadow Minister said earlier that this legislation should be referred to a parliamentary inquiry. I said at the outset that there were some positive aspects about this legislation but the community has not been consulted on this issue. We must get the balance right. As the legislation stands at the moment we do not have a balance. The Government must consult the community, refer this legislation to a parliamentary committee and allay community concern. Opposition members are concerned about several provisions in this bill. The Government must address those concerns. Manly Council's submission also states:
The Council is of the view the reforms as proposed should be deferred, and a broad round of consultation be undertaken by the Department of Planning with all interested parties.
That is a summation of the feelings of my community. Local communities want power and these legislative provisions must be streamlined. This bill goes only part of the way towards addressing these issues. If this legislation is referred to an upper House parliamentary committee all our concerns will be addressed.
|
