Mr NATHAN HAGARTY (Leppington) (19:57): 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.
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 Abundance 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.
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 Abundance 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: Yes, it is still on the map. [Extension of time]
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.
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, Abundance, 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.
