Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025

 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.

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 Planning for Bush Fire Protection 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.

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 Planning for Bush Fire Protection 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): 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.