Legislative Assembly

16637 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Wednesday 8 June 2005 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Joseph Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PLANNING REFORM) BILL Second Reading Debated resumed from 27 May 2005. Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.00 a.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill in many aspects adopts Coalition policy. However, the Coalition has some major concerns with the bill, and chief among these is the new concept of "critical infrastructure". If a project is declared as critical infrastructure there are no appeals against approval decisions, and there are no third party legal challenges under any environmental and planning statutes. If a project is declared critical infrastructure, State environmental planning policies and other environmental planning instruments will not affect the proposal. In his second reading speech the Minister said: … for critical infrastructure, the environmental assessment process should not be about whether such projects should be approved, but, rather, how they will proceed. A concept approval will be required for all critical infrastructure projects, but no further planning approvals. What is defined as critical infrastructure? In the opinion of Craig Knowles—the Minister for Orange Grove— critical infrastructure is essential for State economic, environmental or social reasons, as he said in his second reading speech. This provision is fraught with danger. How can the people of New South Wales trust Craig Knowles with such power? He is the Minister at the centre of the Orange Grove scandal, and the Minister who pleaded guilty to, and was convicted in court for, driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood. Now he wants to be in charge of the sole approval agency of major projects, and one that grants no right of appeal. The Minister and his department did not even consult the ICAC with regard to this piece of legislation, which potentially provides an open door to corruption. The Opposition wonders what the Minister is likely to classify as critical infrastructure—a factory outlet, a shopping mall, or a nuclear power plant? This Minister or any other member of the Carr Government cannot be trusted with this power. Under this bill you could wake up with the Premier announcing that a nuclear plant will be built at the end of the street and you could not do a single thing to stop it. That is why the Opposition reserves its right to vote against that provision in the bill in the upper House. The Opposition calls on the Government to produce guidelines for what may be defined as "critical infrastructure". This bill is from a Government that in 10 years has not planned for the infrastructure needs of New South Wales. The bill is only necessary because the Carr Government did not plan for the present and future needs of this State. It is a reactive piece of legislation from a reactive government. Today we need a proactive government with a clear plan for New South Wales, and with the fortitude to carry it through, which is clearly lacking with the present Government. After 10 years of stagnation in addressing the infrastructure needs of New South Wales, it is clear that only a Liberal-National Coalition government could solve the significant infrastructure problems of New South Wales. This bill is a response by the Carr Government to its own woeful record on infrastructure in this State—there is no denying it, no whitewashing of the facts; every resident of New South Wales knows it—and the Government has admitted it with this bill. The Government needs to deal with the water, rail, and the overall infrastructure crisis it faces with this bill. Two years ago, Engineers Australia declared infrastructure in New South Wales at crisis point. In its report card on New South Wales infrastructure, Engineers Australia gave the following scores: State roads C+, local roads C—, wastewater C—, stormwater D—and rail D. Now, two years 16638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 8 June 2005 down the track, everyone knows that the situation has deteriorated even further. For water we rely on Warragamba Dam, which was planned in the 1950s when Sydney was only half its present size. Many water mains in Sydney are from an era before the First World War. In the past two weeks those pipes have failed dramatically, spilling thousands upon thousands of litres of water into Sydney streets while the whole State is in the middle of a water crisis. This Government has relied upon the infrastructure that our grandfathers planned for and actually built, while our children will have to rely on the infrastructure that the Carr Government planned, reassessed, consulted, deprioritised, studied its feasibility, and then labelled "too hard". This Government might have planned and announced hundreds of projects but what we need are projects completed on time and on budget, something this Government consistently fails to do. Two weeks ago the State budget papers outlined 171 infrastructure projects that have either been delayed or are over-budget. The cost of those blow-outs stood at $515 million, and is rising. The legacy of the Carr Government is, tragically, one of lost opportunity. In 2002 Bob Carr listed some 87 major metropolitan projects as part of his so-called Strategic Plan. But what has Bob the Builder accomplished? Of those projects, one in every four is subject to significant delay and nearly one in ten has been abandoned or downsized, and budget overruns are already in excess of $752 million. In many areas this bill implements Coalition policy. Only two months ago Mr Brogden stated that the planning approvals for major projects needed to be improved, and the Coalition is on record as stating that planning at the local council level is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. The Coalition will not oppose those areas of the bill. However, as I have stated, we will reserve our judgement on other provisions in the bill, which as currently drafted are rightly cause for concern. In relation to local government planning reform, the first purpose of the bill is to improve the master planning local environmental plan [LEP] and "develop control plans" [DCP] process. For local environmental plans, the reduction in zoning categories from over 3,000 now to around 25 is welcome, but long overdue. However, the ability of local councils to make additions to zonal categories may result in the problems experienced today reappearing in the future. A working draft standard LEP template that seeks to standardise definitions, zones and key provisions of local environmental plans is welcome. Under the bill, only one development control plan will apply to each site and may cover a whole local government area, precinct, or site. I turn now to major infrastructure and State significant development. The bill streamlines the assessment and approval system for major development and infrastructure projects. It gives additional power to the Minister to determine strategic sites and projects of State significance, and resolve issues associated with them. A new State significant development SEPP has nine groups of projects that are now considered State significant development. The bill attempts to remove many of the impediments to project approval through an integrated assessment process. For major projects, stop-the-clock provisions have been removed. All consent approvals from other legislation do not apply. There is only a provision for the Director General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to consult with relevant authorities. No longer will major projects have to seek the approval of Phil Koperberg before being allowed to proceed. For each project the Director General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources will issue specific requirements for the assessment of the project, including the level of assessment, assessment methodology, any performance criteria, and consultation requirements, based on new guidelines. There is a provision in the bill for Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels for major infrastructure, but it is not mandatory. The idea of concept approvals has been introduced in the legislation. For major projects, the development approval process is split, with a new "concept approval" before development application. Concept approvals outline the general details of the project—the approval of which cannot be changed at a later date. I note on behalf of the Coalition that there is little detail in the legislation on what actually counts as a concept approval. The Coalition has concerns about the concept of critical infrastructure. We are entitled to further information about that aspect of the legislation before we can indicate whether or will support the bill support in the Legislative Council. The Government is not entitled to a blank cheque. The people of New South Wales are entitled to know what projects will be classified as critical infrastructure and the basis on which such a classification decision has been made. At a recent symposium held at the Australian Stock Exchange, the Minister gave only one example, and that related to a desalination plant. He was not prepared to enlarge further 8 June 2005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 16639 on what is meant by this concept as proposed by the bill. This is an important aspect of the bill, and one that the people and the Parliament are entitled to have elucidated, expanded, and clarified. I give notice on behalf of the Coalition that we expect that to be done either in this House or in the Legislative Council. May I express my personal congratulations to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Robert Whitehead, on the excellent series of articles that the Herald has been running over the past two weeks about the planning and infrastructure crisis in Sydney.

Load more