Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [4.30 p.m.]: It is worrying that the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 incorporates matters relating to two significant areas that should by rights have been kept separate. The bill seeks to amend the Heritage Act 1977 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Heritage Amendment Bill amends section 23G, not section 118, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, adding to the complexity that section 23G does not appear in the consolidated form of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is part of schedule 2 of the 2008 amendment Act. This bill allows a joint regional planning panel to be the council as set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the Heritage Act. It further relies on the provisions of part 6 division 1AA, which includes section 118, to the same effect planning administrators have. This is really a roundabout way of saying that they can act as planning administrators. That is unquestionably an addition of potential powers for joint regional planning panels, putting them on an equal footing with planning administrators.

This interpretation is backed by the notes provided to the Legislation Review Committee on the purpose and description of changes. Section 118 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides that the Minister for Planning may appoint a planning administrator or a panel, or both, if a council has failed to comply with its obligations under the planning legislation, the performance of the council in dealing with planning and development matters is unsatisfactory, the council agrees to the appointment, or the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommends it because of serious corrupt conduct by any councillors. The amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will allow those powers to be transferred without reference to such tests. The proposed changes to section 23 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act 2008 are unsatisfactory as part of the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 and should proceed as a separate process after consultation with councils and the community.

Planning in New South Wales was in need of reform prior to the 2008 amendments. However, the reform should have been in the form of a completely revised planning Act rather than the piecemeal amended legislation that was introduced. Contrary to the stated intentions of those who supported last year's planning reforms, the planning system has become more complex, less clear and more removed from the proper scrutiny of the local community. The ability of a joint regional planning panel to consent to development that will affect the fabric of development of local communities is at odds with the wishes of our community. Any additional change that strengthens, further transfers to or confers upon any unelected and accountable body to make strategic plans and supporting plans and policies, such as section 94 plans and development control plans, is pernicious and should be rejected. The appropriate protection of our heritage is extremely important and it is very frequently challenging to make those decisions that maintain our heritage items while at the same time recognising the impost that this will from time to time place on propriety owners.

A number of components of the bill would be supportable. However, I also note that certain parties are raising very real concerns, such as the History Council of New South Wales, which has an unquestionable specific knowledge of our heritage. The National Trust also has concerns, including about the ambiguity created by the introduction of concepts such as necessity, economic use and financial hardship as additional criteria for the listing of places on the State Heritage Register, lack of references to public involvement while consolidating the Minister's power to act unilaterally without reference to either the Heritage Council or the community, and the erosion of section 170 assets out of a perceived response to reduce the Government's liabilities rather than to protect New South Wales heritage. I suggest that the vast majority of residents of New South Wales have no understanding of what is happening with this legislation and that many groups that would have had a distinct interest and capacity to provide input have been denied that opportunity by the haste with which these amendments have been introduced and the associated confusion with the intent and function of the bill.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [4.35 p.m.]: I oppose the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 because it does little to establish a framework for local government heritage listings and fails to address the Heritage Review submissions. It is vital to apply an adequate level of protection to sites, buildings, properties and objects of historical significance. Laws to protect such aspects of historical significance in New South Wales must be approached with respect and balance. Several representations have been made to me by various local historical societies all of which are fearful of the implications of the Government's proposed amendments. Many believe these amendments seek to reduce the significance of heritage buildings by decreasing protection of current and proposed heritage listings. I will raise some of these concerns in the House today.

One such amendment that has raised concern is the fact there is no impetus to appoint a qualified historian to the Heritage Council of New South Wales. I note that the Minister states the Heritage Council will be reduced from 15 to 11 members. Opposition members would reduce the membership to nine because we believe it allows for more efficient use of a skill-based membership. However, when introducing this bill to Parliament last month, the Minister for Planning also stated that the Heritage Council will consist of a chairperson, the director general of the Department of Planning, the director general of the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the New South Wales Government Architect, six members appointed by the Minister, as well as a representative of the National Trust of Australia, New South Wales. There appears to be many representatives from the Government, including six Minister-appointed members, but not many Independent members.

Local historical societies have raised the importance of having an historian guaranteed a position on the council. These societies have expressed to me the complexity of assessing potentially historic sites and relics, and the need for an independent and experienced historian to be a part of that process, which the Minister's comments do not indicate. Given the beauty and stunning appeal of the Port Stephens area, there is constant interest from developers for all kinds of development to attract visitors, house visitors, feed visitors and entertain visitors. It would therefore come as little surprise that local historical societies are always kept on their toes with regard to potential developments on potentially historic sites. Local historical societies have expressed to me their concern that the proposed regional assessment panels could override local governments in planning and development decisions.

For example, some members may know the villages of Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens in my electorate. The area was first settled in the early nineteenth century when white settlers began foresting in the area, particular for red cedar. The villages of Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens straddle the Myall River as it enters the northern shore of Port Stephens. This Government continues to ignore the environmental disaster that I continue to report to this House, so it is little wonder that the residents of Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens have little faith in any legislation produced by this inept Government that threatens their idyllic lifestyle. Aside from the current environmental degradation, Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens remain as quiet and sleepy villages, which attract many for holidays and many of those tourists retire there. That is why many in the community of Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens expended a lot of energy lobbying the Great Lakes Council to maintain the quiet fishing village ambience that makes the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens villages so fabulous and unique, and that is what attracts many people to buy holiday houses or to retire in the area. Those in the community now believe they have won their campaign to maintain the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens area as it is. However, this Heritage Amendment Bill has sparked fear that local governments will lose their power to protect historically significant sites and relics.

The Opposition also harbours concerns about a lack of framework for local government heritage listings. Many of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amendments merely add to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amendments that were put to this House last year. The Coalition opposed it at the time and it opposes it now. I am one member of this House who has experienced the ineptitude of this Government's approach to planning. In 2001 Minister Knowles introduced the coastal policy, in State environmental planning policy 71. This policy gave the Minister consent authority on all major developments within one kilometre of the high-water mark on a coastal strip from Port Stephens to Tweed Shire and it was an absolute disaster.

A development application for a 13-metre-high building in an eight-metre height zone in Shoal Bay, one of the most magnificent and unaffected bays on the New South Wales coast, was approved without any council or community consultation by same nameless Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources bureaucrat hiding in an office in Sydney. A height zone that had been respected by councillors of all persuasions for decades was ignored by some planning functionary who could not care less. As is common with this Government, State environmental planning policy was shared statewide as part 3A, stripping communities of any involvement in determining their own future. The continuous changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and irrational Land and Environment Court rulings are making development and zoning approvals unnecessarily complicated and frustratingly time-consuming. Yet this Government blames councils for being inefficient. These planning panels are the latest impost on our communities.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act should not be further amended; it should be torn up and replaced with legislation that allows everyone, be they applicant, neighbour, councillor or council planner, to know what the rules are and allow them to work within those rules. The amendments in this bill also fail to address the Opposition's proposal for a separate Minister for Heritage, which I believe would greatly benefit all involved in historically sensitive developments. As I said earlier, the approach to protecting potentially historically and culturally significant sites, buildings and artefacts must be done with balance in respect to planning and heritage. The Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 falls a long way short of achieving that.

Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [4.41 p.m.]: I will provide some brief comments on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009. I am sure I am not the only one who recognises the irony in the objects of this bill. The objects reflecting the roles and functions of the Act and the Heritage Council have been added to modernise the Act and clarify community perceptions. A number of members have spoken about a number of issues that they have with this bill. I do not wish to go over every one of them but I will raise a couple of points. One of the major points of contention seems to surround schedule 1, proposed sections 8 and 9, regarding the reduction of membership of the Heritage Council from a maximum of 15 members to a maximum of 11 members and to remove the appointment of members nominated by particular organisations other than the National Trust of Australia, New South Wales.

Like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I have received correspondence regarding this. Mark Dunn, the president of the History Council of New South Wales, questions how the Heritage Council will possibly assess heritage significance against the new thematic listings criteria without the input of a historian. The council is calling for an amendment to the bill to include a guarantee of a historian on the Heritage Council. Mari Metzke, manager of the Royal Australian Historical Society, noted in an email to me:

To date the presence of a historian has ensured that there had been the right kind of checks and balances in place so that appropriate heritage items can be included in not only the State Register but Local Environment Plans as well.

As my Independent colleagues have noted, the National Trust is concerned with three points, namely, ambiguity introduced by the introduction of concepts such as necessity, economic use and financial hardship as additional criteria for the listing of places on the State Heritage Register; the lack of references to public involvement while consolidating the Minister's power to act unilaterally without reference to either the Heritage Council or community; and the erosion of section 170 assets out of a perceived response to reduce the Government's liabilities rather than protect New South Wales heritage.

Closer to home for me, Leonie Laws of the Port Macquarie Historical Society and Museum, has read over the bill and offered the following comments. Item [14] of schedule 1 will amend section 33 of the Heritage Act to provide that before making a recommendation for the listing of a precinct, the council must publish a notice of intention to consider listing in at least one metropolitan newspaper and one local newspaper circulating in the precinct, rather than giving written notice to each owner occupier of the land in the precinct, as is currently the case. That will change the notification process so that the council has to put an advertisement only in the paper. Leonie Laws is concerned about the reduction in accountability of the process and does not believe it is good enough. She is concerned also that the number of people on the Heritage Council is a threat to its integrity, and she has a couple of other issues as well.

The Heritage of Port Macquarie has been devastated by a lack of prior planning and a lack of respect for our heritage. We still have a number of heritage-listed items in our area, including the courthouse and the Norfolk Island pines in Port Macquarie; the Kendall School of Arts in Kendall; the Lake Innes ruins and environs at Lake Innes; the Laurieton School of Arts in Laurieton; the pilot station at Camden Head; and the St Mary the Virgin Anglican Church at Herons Creek. A number of heritage buildings have been destroyed through the march to progress and the modernisation of our area. In light of that, I would certainly support the Opposition's move for a Minister for Heritage, someone who could take control of that. I would like someone to look after heritage that has not been taken seriously, particularly in our area, but I would take that one step further. In the Act "relic" means:

Any deposit, object or material evidence that:

(a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and

(b) which is 50 or more years old.

I see no reason why we should still have that separation between Aboriginal settlement and European settlement. As we move forward in one Australia we should be considering all heritage with equal value and have it come under one umbrella. In 2008 the Prime Minister said:

There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time.

I have no bloodlines that tie me to our early or current indigenous population of Australia, nor do I have a family connection to the Birpai people of our local area. Neither do I have any bloodlines or relationship to the early European settlers of Australia. These facts do not stop me from feeling a strong connection between the activities of our area's cultural history—be that indigenous or otherwise—and a strong sense of belonging to a community that is not only focused on where it is heading but also mindful of where it has been. We have a great opportunity to move forward with the united society of one Australia, rather than a division based on culturally historic lines, but to do so we must start by breaking down the divisions of the past. That includes treating all heritage items under one banner. I believe a Minister for Heritage would achieve that.

In our area, the local Birpai history has been passed down from elder to elder and, sadly, we have lost most of that history. That is a great tragedy and travesty not only for the people of our area but also for the people of the State. Some of the indigenous history we have was captured on film by Thomas Dick, who left us the Thomas Dick collection. Thomas's grandfather settled in Port Macquarie on the North Coast in 1841 after migrating from England. Thomas's interest was in photography and certainly in photographing the local Birpai indigenous populations. In 1923 he said of his work:

I set out years ago to collect and write the history of these Aborigines, and get together, not only a fine collection of photos, but also a fine collection of implements etc., and not the least was a remarkable amount of information.

I went into the mountains with them, gained their confidence and their secrets connected with their laws, and in some instances the information was only given with the understanding that it would only [?not] be published until after death.

He ends up bemoaning the fact that we would be likely to lose that history. He states:

In all their doings these primitive people followed nature, and when the whole is written a very interesting record will be made available to those interested. I do not know when I will bring out the work for I am now too much handicapped.

Sadly, a lot of that information was lost. It is not only the indigenous history; early Port Macquarie's European history is among the most significant in the State and the nation. The region not only grabbed Captain Cook's attention in 1770 as he sailed past and named the Three Brothers mountains—now known as North Brother, Middle Brother and South Brother—it also was charted by Matthew Flinders in 1802. It came to John Oxley's attention in 1818 as well. Since then the fortunes of the major town of Port Macquarie have ebbed with the tides, from the penal settlement of 1821 to the busy port of 1825, from a small fishing village in the early 1900s to the largest town now between Newcastle and the Tweed.

There remain graphic reminders of the town's colonial days, such as St Thomas' Church, the fifth oldest Anglican Church still in use in Australia built in 1824; the historic courthouse built in 1869; the Westpac Bank built in 1891; the Wesleyan Chapel built in 1845; the Royal Hotel built in 1887; surveyor John Flynn's home built in 1890; the pilot station and cottages, built between 1896 and 1937; one of the country's first vineyards, Douglas Vale, commenced in 1862; and the historic museum, once a residential-commercial building, built in 1835. Significant pieces of the town-built European history have vanished and, with them, opportunities lost in tourism, business and heritage preservation. Among the casualties were the female factory built in 1825 where women made nails and other items; Government House built in 1821; and Major Innes' mansion, reported to be one of the grandest homes in the colony, built between 1831 and 1843.

Over the years, vandals, souvenir hunters, thieves and natural decay have completely obliterated these once significant landmarks or reduced them to ruin classified by the National Trust of Australia. Not only do we have a poor history of recognising our early European past, we have a poor history of recognising our indigenous culture. I would like government at all levels to consider how we can move forward as a community and look after our heritage, not only our European heritage but also our indigenous heritage. I ask government to put the effort and considerable thought into how we can achieve that.

Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.52 p.m.]: As a member of the Coalition I oppose the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009. In doing so, I represent the strongly held views of members of my electorate, who rate heritage and preservation of historic buildings in high regard whenever I carry out a survey. In fact, I live in a house that has a National Trust recording. It is part of early Federation architecture and part of the precinct recognised by the National Trust. Over the years my husband and I have fought off developers, who wanted to purchase the house, pull it down and build high-rise development. That would have been a crime, yet that is exactly the kind of thing that might well happen under this legislation. Three or four houses around our home preserve a particular precinct that is very important to the heritage of this area, which is part of Thrupp's Estate, a very early settlement of the North Shore. It provides a distinct character to that part of northern Sydney, with very fine old buildings—difficult as they are to maintain and keep in order, but future generations will not forgive us if we jeopardise their future.

As the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Opposition members and the member for Port Macquarie have said, it is of concern that this bill is not about heritage but is about giving the Minister greater power to override heritage considerations in planning. In particular, I take note of the views of some organisations, such as the National Trust, which recently hosted a breakfast debate and raised concerns about the appointment of an historian to the Heritage Council. I shall read onto the record an email I received yesterday from a constituent, Emeritus Professor David Carment, who states:

I write to express my concerns about the proposed amendments to the New South Wales Heritage Act currently before parliament. I do so as one of your constituents and as a historian with particular interests and extensive experience in cultural heritage management and Australian regional history.

There are wonderful aspects to the heritage of Australian white settlement, Aboriginal heritage, early military heritage at Georges Heights, and at HMAS Platypus and Balls Head. Indeed, since its inception I have been a member of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Consultative Committee, which is worried about retention of the heritage nature of those sites so that future generations can understand and appreciate what went before. Professor Carment continues:

While I acknowledge that some changes to the legislation are necessary—

the Coalition agrees with the need for amendment to planning legislation but this is not it—

the following three aspects of the amendments worry me greatly.

1. There is no guarantee that the new Heritage Council will include a historian. Qualifications in history are absolutely vital in an understanding of heritage. While the thematic approach to listing outlined in the Bill is sensible, it is difficult to know how a Heritage Council that does not include qualified historians will assess the relevance of particular items to each theme.

2. State Heritage listing processes and practices are being altered to take greater account of 'economic and non-heritage issues'. There is a risk that these will override heritage values.

3. The Minister appears to have considerably increased powers. I am unable to see why these are necessary. They diminish the Heritage Council's status.

I fear that the amendments could return the state to the pre-heritage legislation era when there was widespread conflict over heritage and many historically important places were lost. The amendments also fail to recognise that heritage listing and associated conservation measures frequently enhance the cultural and economic values of such places.

Such is the case in my electorate of North Shore. I conclude by saying that I wrote to the professor and pointed out the Coalition's proposal to appoint a separate heritage Minister, which I believe is the way to go. I am disappointed that the Government has not picked up that policy proposal. The Leader of the Opposition announced a proposal some weeks ago to overhaul the operations of the Heritage Council to provide greater certainty and transparency in decision-making, quite the opposite to what is now proposed. As the Leader of the Opposition said at the time, this direction is vital to our natural, cultural and indigenous heritage and to conserving it for future generations.

Heritage items are today and tomorrow's links to our community. If the Government does not understand that, it should wander through countries with a long and proud heritage, countries that retain their heritage sites, in Europe, Asia or the Pacific Islands. Their people know what has happened in the past; they understand and appreciate their culture. They value their buildings and cultural activities and want to look at their cultural and heritage items. It is a very important initiative of the Coalition to appoint a Minister for heritage, to relocate the Heritage Office from the Planning portfolio to the Environment portfolio, and to give heritage a voice in Cabinet. I commend the Coalition's policy to the Minister. I have no compunction about voting against this measure; it is ridiculous.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [5.00 p.m.]: As the Minister has sat in this Chamber she has heard speaker after speaker on this side of the House spelling out a catalogue of concerns—none more eloquently than the member for North Shore, whom I congratulate. As I indicated to the Minister earlier, I do not want to keep her from attending the meeting she is rushing to get to. Indeed, I want to talk about that in a moment. The theme throughout this debate—we have heard member after member talk about it—is whether the communities in New South Wales trust this Government with their planning decisions.

Mr Daryl Maguire: They've broken it down.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: As the member for Wagga Wagga says, the Government has slowly broken down that trust—I might add, systematically through a number of Ministers. Even this bill, which purports to be a heritage bill, includes at the back of it very significant, sensitive and critical changes. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House have made that point. However, I will focus on heritage for a moment. Heritage is critical to just about everyone in this State. Indeed, it is a raw nerve through the community. People wanted the legislation to be updated, but a number of concerns have been expressed about the bill. I mention one concern from the History Council of New South Wales, whose representatives sat through the debate yesterday to hear what was being said about the legislation in this Chamber. The concern expressed by the History Council, and by other interest groups, is that the Government has not picked up on the great list of concerns that have been put forward as part of the review. I think that is a terrible shame, because it was a real opportunity for the Government to do a major update of the legislation and get considerable agreement across the spectrum.

Behind the heritage clauses in the bill there are further changes to planning. I know the Government had the opportunity to remove those clauses from the bill; the shadow Minister suggested to the Government that it should first deal with heritage and then deal with planning. But the Government wanted to slide the planning clauses through. That comes back to the issue of trust, which is simply lacking in this State. Time and again we have seen it. The Minister had a 5 o'clock meeting—which hopefully will happen fairly soon—to deal with a project in my electorate. A few people are coming to see the Minister this afternoon about the Ashington Group's proposal in Double Bay. It is a high-rise proposal in an area where developers can only go to six storeys. Why can developers only go to six storeys? Because years and years ago the Government forced the local council to revise its local environmental plan and upgrade the density in that area.

So, after a very considerable debate in the community and within the council, the community embraced the new local environmental plan. What happened? Ashington, another greedy developer, thought, "We have an excellent chance of getting, through this State Labor Government, a rort of the planning system." That is exactly what it is going to be. The few people who are coming to see the Minister this afternoon represent thousands in the community who have mobilised themselves to object to this proposal. It is extraordinary that this greedy developer is so arrogant in its approach that it has put forward this proposal thinking that the Minister can sign it off.

The point I have made to everyone in the community is very simple: There is no reason to sign off this high-rise proposal in Double Bay, which will simply deliver multi-million dollar harbour views to a greedy developer. If the State Labor Government signs off on this proposal, it will sign off on high rise in any suburb. The Ashington proposal is in a suburb where public transport has been degraded over the years by this Government. It is not as though it is part of the Minister's proposals to put further density over railway stations, or anything of that nature. The proposal is in a suburb where the Government has run down public transport. Nothing supports the proposal, yet the Minister is going through this charade of seriously considering it. The proposal should have been rejected. The Government should have told the developer on day one, "Get back with the local council and work within the rules." But the Government will not do that. Why? Because it is a system that absolutely stinks, and it is not working in the interests of the community.

A number of members have spoken on this bill, and spoken very eloquently. One of them, the member for Pittwater, made an extremely valuable contribution yesterday, and I suggest people read it. Immediately after him, the member for Hawkesbury also spoke on the bill. Although it is not recorded in Hansard, it is on the sound recording. The Minister at the table interjected during the member for Hawkesbury's speech. The Minister said, "Say that outside the House." The member for Hawkesbury was talking about this morally bankrupt Government and a system that is conducive to corruption. The Minister, resorting to old Sussex Street tactics, simply used intimidation. We have seen that time and again from the New South Wales Right. One has to ask: Why is the Minister, the show pony of the New South Wales Right, doing it? The answer is: Because she is a creature of Sussex Street. How do people think she got in here? Before the 2003 election, a woman of principle was thrown out of this House and replaced by somebody straight from Sussex Street. Why did the Government do that? It did it because it wanted a yes woman.

Mr Daryl Maguire: A machine woman.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: As the member for Wagga Wagga said, the Government wanted a machine woman. In this Chamber the Minister is known as Noddy. Every time the Government puts forward an outrageous point of view, the Minister can be seen nodding behind whoever is speaking. I have only seen the Minister shake her head once in this Chamber, and that was today when the member for Murrumbidgee said Al Grassby was the most corrupt member of Parliament Australia has ever seen. The Minister was defending Al Grassby. That is hard to believe. Other than that, the Minister totally agrees with everything the Government has done, and that is because that was the deal. When she came into Parliament, she was to back the New South Wales Labor Right head office, Sussex Street. After a few years, who did the Government put in as planning Minister to make all the centralised decisions in New South Wales? It put in Noddy. Noddy has a few more chances—and one of them is Ashington's proposal in Double Bay—to work in the interests of the community. The Minister should reject the proposal out of hand.

Mr Ninos Khoshaba: Point of order: The member for Vaucluse has been attacking the Minister and not referring to her by her name or title. He has been calling her names such as "creature of Sussex Street". I ask you to direct him to withdraw those comments.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The Chamber is fairly robust—

Ms Kristina Keneally: He can still use the proper title, Mr Acting-Speaker.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! Members accept that debate in this Chamber is robust. I am certain that the member for Vaucluse will abide by the standing orders and address the Minister by her correct title.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: Mr Acting-Speaker, you are right. We should refer to the Minister as Sussex Street's Minister for Planning. That is the title we should all use. That is the title she is known as across New South Wales. Frank has gone. But, as one of my colleagues said—

Mr Ninos Khoshaba: Point of order: I ask whether the member for Vaucluse would like to withdraw his comment and apologise to the Minister.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! What does the member for Smithfield want the member for Vaucluse to withdraw?

Mr Ninos Khoshaba: The member for Vaucluse was referring to the Minister as a creature of Sussex Street, which is extremely unparliamentary of him. The member for Vaucluse has been a member of this place for a long time, and he should know better.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: If I said "creature of Sussex Street", I am happy to withdraw that. I thought I said the Minister was the appointee of Sussex Street. However, if I said "creature of Sussex Street", I withdraw that. The interesting point is that this Government over 14 years has simply centralised all the planning decisions. Earlier I spoke about trust. But we are also talking about the character of communities across New South Wales. People live in certain areas because that is the character of the community they want. They do not want Sussex Street trashing that character—and that is exactly what the Government has done over the last 14 years, especially over the last couple of sessions of Parliament, in fact since the Minister was appointed.

Members should take note of what happened in the 2003 election, when the Minister replaced a very principled woman. In an election when the Government got a swing towards it, the Minister got a swing against her. Then, in the last election, the Minister got another swing against her. The Minister needs to look to the future. If she is really positioning herself in this House, she needs to make sure that she is here after the next election. There will be a further swing against her, and she needs to make sure that she can progress up the bench.

Mr Robert Furolo: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 73, reflection on members by substantive motion only. The member is attacking the Minister, making imputations and allegations about electoral matters—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. While the member for Vaucluse has made a number of comments, they do not constitute a substantive attack on the Minister. The member for Vaucluse is entitled to make those observations. Members make similar observations about other members every day of the week.

Mr PETER DEBNAM: I may consider moving such a motion at a future date. I think it is very important for the Minister to focus on trust. Why does the Minister not take a real risk in the next couple of months, especially in relation to my electorate, and do something for the community? The Minister made one good decision, which surprised a lot of people—especially the people represented by the member for Pittwater. Why does the Minister not make a few more of those decisions and say she will overturn the system that has worked for Sussex Street, and start working for the community? There is nothing about the Ashington proposal that warrants approval.

It is outrageously arrogant and greedy and should have been ruled out on day one. But it was not. The Minister has an opportunity to rule it out now. She will have that opportunity this afternoon when she meets with some residents, who hopefully will present her with a petition with many thousands of names objecting to the proposal. It must be understood that every member who opposes the bill does so because we simply do not trust the Government. That feeling is embodied in what might appear to be a fairly innocuous bill. But when it has to do with planning and a Sussex Street appointed Minister making decisions about planning, nobody in New South Wales trusts the Government.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.11 p.m.]: Preserving our heritage is important because it tells the story of who we are, where we have come from, and of our community. Whether it is bricks and mortar, items in museums or books in libraries, our heritage paints the picture of our nation and the growth that has been experienced since settlement, and even before the settlers came to Australia. It is clear from the contributions to this debate that there is concern about the power being put in the Minister's hands and whether the Government can be trusted. The Government has demonstrated on many occasions in the past 14 years that "trust" is a word it truly does not understand. It has not exercised its functions in the best interests of the people of New South Wales.

I will highlight my concerns, and those of my community, as to the effect of schedule 2 on my electorate, and particularly the city of Wagga Wagga, which is currently midway through its local environmental plan [LEP]. For quite some time the city of Wagga Wagga has experienced population growth—it is growing at about 1.6 per cent—because of investment by private industry, assisted by council, local and Federal members of Parliament and others who work together to attract that industry. This has resulted in the requirement to release more housing. First home owner statistics reveal that Wagga Wagga has rated very highly, and has done so for a number of years.

Major investment is also occurring at the 1st Recruit Training Battalion of the Royal Australian Air Force at Kapooka. A $600 million gas peak-loading generator has just been completed to substitute the network in generating energy. In Tumut, there is the $600 million stage two Visy development. In the Beaumont agricultural area hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in a sleeper-making factory to produce two million sleepers to upgrade the main rail line from Sydney to Melbourne and other rail lines across Australia. A lead smelter is being built, at a cost of approximately $17 million, and will create approximately 65 jobs. When the Aldi supermarket, currently under construction, is completed there will be tens of jobs available.

The problem Wagga Wagga faces is that a local planning panel has been appointed and is engaged in the local environmental plan process—it is halfway through. In fact, the time for comment closed on Friday 30 May. The concern is that this process will be interrupted by the powers of the regional planning committees that are included in the bill. I know that the Wagga Wagga City Council wants to finish the process, and I understand that 160 objections have been put in the draft local environmental plan. Those objections are important because the local environmental plan creates major problems for Wagga Wagga. If one were to adopt the plan as is it would mean the bulk retail areas could be located only in certain parts of the city.

The city of Wagga Wagga has a population of 60,000 people and on the main arterial roads there are industrial areas that can retail goods. That means that if I have a business on Dobney Avenue that sells automotive parts, for instance, and I sell that business, the owner of the new business can continue to sell automotive parts. But if I were to change the purpose or the nature of the business I would have to go through the development application process. Under the proposed new guidelines, selling automotive parts would be precluded in that area and my business would be directed to a defined bulky goods area elsewhere in the city. The change of use of property will affect a great many landholders. It will devalue some properties because as businesses change—whether they be core, ancillary, hardware or home renovation businesses—as the Leyshon Consulting Pty Ltd report says, they have limited opportunities to operate.

I raise this issue with the Minister now to seek an assurance that, whatever occurs, Wagga Wagga will be able to finish its plan. If that does not occur, it will hinder the rezoning of land that is needed desperately. Progress in Wagga Wagga has been hindered for a number of years. Builders are crying out for development properties and people are waiting to invest, and neither the council nor I want to see this process interrupted. That does not mean that we will agree with the overall plan; I suggest that a great deal of debate is yet to occur before the final plan is adopted. We have to work through 160 objections—which is a large number—and each must be dealt with on its merits. If the plan is adopted now it will have a catastrophic effect on businesses that are currently operating, and on people's freedom to locate businesses where they see fit.

In my opinion the plan removes the right of individuals to decide on the best place to locate a business to suit their particular needs. For example, if I were to sell hardware such as lawnmowers I would be directed to a bulky goods centre and not be able to choose the location I considered to be best suited to my business. I would appreciate a response from the Minister to my comments because there is concern—dare I say alarm—on the part of many landholders and business operators throughout the city about some aspects of the local environmental plan. The development control plan is also of concern. As to regional committees, I inform the Minister that when Bruce Miller made a planning suggestion at the local government conference yesterday, it received the loudest jeers. Members have indicated that the Minister has a lot of work to do in that regard, and I would appreciate a response on that issue. I inform the House that I will vote against the bill.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [5.19 p.m.]: As previous speakers have said, the Opposition will oppose the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009, with very good reason. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is a Trojan horse of a bill. It purports to be about heritage, but in reality it is about centralising more power in the hands of the State's Minister for Planning, despite the Independent Commission Against Corruption report about the corruption risks involved and a "donations for decisions" culture in this State that stinks from Macquarie Street down to Wollongong.

Ms Kristina Keneally: If you have an accusation, take it to ICAC.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Cronulla does not need the encouragement of the Minister for Planning.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It was a very ill-planned interjection. At no point did I make an allegation that could be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption report about the corruption risks involved. I suggest that the Minister listen carefully—and she should have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition's contribution to the bill yesterday. I will return to the leave of the bill because it is important for the future of the Sutherland shire. Currently Adam Spencer is doing a broadcast on the shires—Hornsby and others—and he will be at Cronulla Beach tomorrow.

Mr Thomas George: Is there any other shire?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The member for Lismore is right when he asks whether there is any other shire. I would say no. The Sutherland shire is unique, but there is controversy at present. This bill relates to the future of the shire. The Government has released a draft subregional strategy, which is of great concern to the people of my electorate and the Sutherland shire because it provides a detailed framework to link local and State planning and to guide private sector and government investment. Unfortunately, it is a deeply flawed document. I will refer to it in relation to planning issues in the shire. I am pleased that the shadow Minister for Planning is present in the Chamber. Some time ago the shadow Minister and I went to Gunnamatta Bay in response to residents' concerns about a marina. We still are awaiting a response from the Minister as to whether the marina will be approved. In response to a question on notice, the Minister said that she had sought expert opinion and that it would be released when the decision is made. The people in my area, and I believe throughout the State, are concerned because Gunnamatta Bay is a State recreational facility that is important to the whole of the State.

Mr Brad Hazzard: When is the Minister going to release the report?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: When is the Minister going to make a decision?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Cronulla has the call. He does not need the encouragement of Opposition members.

Mr Brad Hazzard: It is not encouragement. I was down there as well and I share the concerns.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Cronulla has the call.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The South Subregion Draft Subregional Strategy involves the St George area and Sutherland shire. The strategy identifies the F6 freeway corridor as having strategic importance, and the Government has decided that the corridor will be retained to provide capacity for future transport use. The Roads budget, which has been released by the Opposition, shows no provision for work to be carried out on the F6, despite its importance to my electorate and the Illawarra. The Government must address this issue. The draft subregional strategy is a lengthy document that does not provide a strong strategic direction for the Sutherland shire. A number of areas have been left unresolved and require further study. These include the status of the Sutherland, Miranda and Caringbah centres and the future of the F6 corridor, which is an integral component of the future status of Sutherland, Miranda and Caringbah. The expected growth in housing and jobs must take into account the declining population trends in the shire, particularly the working-age population, as revealed by the 2006 census data.

The success of these development targets in the shire is highly dependent on the economic trends in the region. We are well aware of the current economic trends. The document was completed before the global financial crisis, and the strategy does not provide any clear direction for those centres. There is a danger that without State impetus it is unlikely these centres will attract significant economic activity. Further, the strategy fails to satisfy the general objectives of the Government's integrating land use and transport strategy. It addresses the various transport modes independently but fails to address properly their integration at local and regional levels and their links to key employment generators and land use generally. Coupled with the uncertainty of the hierarchy of the shire centres, the role and hierarchy of railway stations were not identified in the strategy to assist and guide strategic transport and planning decisions around those stations. That is a very important issue, as can be readily appreciated. The strategy identifies the Cronulla and Sutherland railway line as a transport corridor and the F6 as a future transport corridor. It identifies the need for sustainable transport modes, such as cycling and public transport, and proposed recreational trails. The Government has failed to implement a cycleway along the duplication of the Sutherland to Cronulla railway line.

Mr Thomas George: A cycleway?

Mr MALCOLM KERR: A cycleway, which is crucial to the quality of life in the shire and could be used by working families who are unable to afford, under the Rudd Government, the usual forms of entertainment and recreation because they have been priced out.

Mr Thomas George: More transport issues.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: More transport, as the member for Lismore says. We have only to look at the increase in public transport prices that has occurred while this Government has been in office. A local resident wrote to me saying:

Locally, Mr Kerr, if the proposal of 10,100 extra dwellings—

I will repeat that for the benefit of the House: The Government has identified 10,100 extra dwellings—

within the Shire is irreversible, what plans are in hand to ensure that adequate and reliable water, power and public transport and amenities will be available to service the increased population?

The Minister will refer to the desalination plant. Not one drop of water will go to residents in the Sutherland shire. Without the infrastructure to support those dwellings we will have gridlock and inadequate supplies of water and power. The Sutherland shire has already had blackouts as a result of the Government's mismanagement. The Opposition wants the people to have a say about their built environment. They are the ones at the coalface and their quality of life is affected.

Mr Robert Furolo: Point of order: Standing Order 76, Relevancy, states, "A member speaking shall be relevant to the subject matter of the debate." The member for Cronulla is talking about the desalination plant and infrastructure. He is not talking about the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009, which is before the House.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I do not understand how the desalination plant, as much of an icon as it might be in the member's electorate, can be regarded as a building of heritage significance. Perhaps the member for Cronulla can persuade me accordingly.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: It relates to planning. Proper planning is needed to provide facilities for the population. The bill relates to the planning process and the centralisation of planning.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I uphold the point of order. While the bill deals with heritage, it also touches on planning, but not to the extent referred to by the member for Cronulla. The member for Cronulla will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Mr Acting-Speaker, I will certainly be guided by you and will not take your rulings in relation to the desalination plant with a grain of salt. The objects of the bill are very important in relation to heritage. As the shadow Minister said, the Coalition in government will appoint a Minister for heritage.

Mr Brad Hazzard: No more conflicts of interest.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: There will be no more conflicts of interest under the Coalition, and that is a relevant point in relation to this bill.

Mr Brad Hazzard: And part 3A will go—no more switching off heritage.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes, thank you. Heritage will finally have a voice at the Cabinet table that is not in conflict with planning. The member for Port Macquarie endorsed that policy a short time ago. We will have independent adjudication. It is important that the public once again trust government to preserve heritage. Under part 3A there was no regard whatsoever for heritage. The Minister for Planning has twin responsibilities of planning and heritage, and she refuses to recognise that conflict of interest. The Minister for Planning will not receive the thanks of the public because it is the public's heritage. As the member for Wagga Wagga said, we want to know where we have been in order to know who we are. History will be very hard on the Minister, but that is only fair because in dealing with heritage the Minister has been very hard on history.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Minister for Planning, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo) [5.32 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge those members who have spoken on the Heritage Amendment Bill 2009 and thank them for participating in the debate. The member for Wollongong, the member for Smithfield, the member for Shellharbour and the member for Wyong spoke about the content of the bill, the listing and delisting processes, the use of independent hearing and assessment panels, local listing processes, the joint regional planning panels and the section 118 panels, the membership of the Heritage Council, and the use of stop-work orders. A number of members raised similar issues, and I will attempt to address each issue individually. I will also address the particular issues that members raised. The member for Tamworth dealt with the bill's provisions better than many speakers, and I thank him for highlighting issues in his electorate. Like other members, he raised issues concerning the appointment of an historian to the Heritage Council, relics, and the consideration of the economic use of heritage items.

I advise members that it is open to the Minister to appoint a member to the Heritage Council on the basis of skills or expertise in New South Wales or Australian history. Historians are more than welcome on the Heritage Council. In fact—it is in black and white in the bill—they are encouraged. In relation to relics, the Heritage Act requires Heritage Council approval for the disturbance of an archaeological relic. The current definition of a relic is arbitrary: any deposits, object or material evidence that is 50 or more years old. The bill proposes a change from the age-based rule to a relic being of local or State heritage significance. This brings archaeology into line with other types of heritage items, where management decisions are based on the significance of the item. The existing definition encompasses items that are of no heritage value, and that is why we propose to change it. The department will issue guidelines to assess archaeology of local and State significance and, as a result, we will have greater certainty in the approvals process.

In relation to economic use—which I note the member for Tamworth and other members raised—the bill requires the Minister to consider a range of matters before listing or delisting an item on the State Heritage Register. These matters include a recommendation from the Heritage Council, the State heritage significance of an item, whether the long-term conservation of the item is necessary, whether a listing renders the item incapable of reasonable or economic use, and whether a listing causes undue financial hardship to the owner, mortgagee or lessee of the item of the land on which the item is situated. These are all important matters that have a bearing on the conservation of an item. It is important that the Minister consider the individual circumstances of owners as well as the broader planning context of the site in deciding whether to direct the listing or delisting of an item. The National Trust understands the need for balance between heritage values and economic considerations. I quote from the trust's media statement of 15 May, which states:

We support the Bill's intent to allow the concerns of owners and developers to be heard and considered.

Ms Sylvia Hale, MLC, also understands the balance that needs to be considered. In a speech at a National Trust breakfast in April, Ms Hale said:

The Greens recognise that heritage protection is a balancing act. Once a rigorous assessment has been made, the protection we give to our heritage sites must be strong although tempered with a suitable degree of practical flexibility. There is no point, for example, in keeping old buildings in a state of permanent vacancy and long-term neglect and decay.

These are the exact issues that the bill seeks to address. I note that the member for Wollongong and the member for Lismore gave very clear examples of why economic considerations should be brought to bear when looking at whether to list or delist heritage items. Importantly, the Minister will still be required to receive and consider a recommendation from the Heritage Council about an item before the Minister can direct a listing or the removal of a listing. The member for Lake Macquarie raised a number of issues, and I commend him for having considered carefully the content of the bill. One particular issue he raised, which a few other members mentioned also, was why we do not allow more time for public comment on the bill. He considered that perhaps the bill had been introduced in some haste.

I remind the member for Lake Macquarie that the review of the Heritage Act has already been subject to significant public scrutiny and comment. The independent expert panel's review process included a comprehensive public participation process. This involved advertisements for public submissions in major metropolitan newspapers; meetings with key stakeholders, including representatives of heritage bodies, property owners, and State and local governments; and consideration by the panel of the subsequent 140 submissions from 126 departments, local councils, groups and individuals. A summary of the submissions was included in the review report, which is publicly available on the department's website. Any person or organisation that sought to comment on the Heritage Act has had ample opportunity to do so. I believe the community wants to see the recommendations of the panel implemented and does not want to see this process prolonged.

The member for Port Macquarie raised three issues in relation to the bill and also made a rather impassioned plea that we continue to break down divisions and apply to Aboriginal heritage the same processes we use when considering heritage items that result from European settlement. I note that the member clearly has passionate views about this issue, and I respect him for it. However, I observe that that was not a recommendation of the review and thus has not been included in the Act or in the changes brought about as a result of the review.

He raised the reduction in the size of the Heritage Council from 15 members to 11 members. The review recommends that reduction. The Australian Capital Territory Heritage Council has 11 members, the Queensland council has 12 members, the Victorian council has 10 members and the Western Australian council has nine members. The recommended skill set in the bill addresses the full range of heritage issues and notes that three ex officio members will continue as members of the council. The Government has also ensured that the National Trust is represented on the council to reflect community views on heritage. In addition, all existing members appointed on the basis of their skills and expertise in one of the areas currently nominated under the Act will continue as members, and members appointed as representatives of organisations will be able to reapply under the skills criteria.

The member also raised an issue that no-one else raised; that is, whether there would be adequate public notification of planned listing of precincts on the State Heritage Register. Consultation with owners of affected properties in the broader community is an essential part of the heritage listing process. Owners must understand the implications of the proposed listing and the broader community should also appreciate the reasons behind it. That is why the Government has made these amendments. Notifications in newspapers will occur on three occasions. If the Heritage Council recommends a listing of a precinct, the Minister will be able to refer the matter to a ministerial review panel for advice or request the Planning Assessment Commission to review the matter. Members also raised a number of other issues relating to their local communities, and I thank them for that.

The member for Pittwater—I call him the shadow, shadow Minister for Planning—gave a very erudite exposition. It was obvious that he had read the bill. Unlike his leader, he knew that the Act already contains timelines. The Leader of the Opposition should have checked with his shadow Minister's shadow. The member delivered an academic paper and I encourage him to publish it. He particularly focused on heritage and planning and he suggested the analogy of a marriage between the two.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst is out of order. He will not sing in the Chamber.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The marriage between heritage and planning produced an offspring and it is called Currawong. Currawong was given State heritage listing because of the way in which we deal with heritage and planning under part 3A. Using that process we were able to consider the heritage aspects in the context of a development application and then heritage list that important site. I do not understand why he is arguing against the process that produced a result that his local community wanted and has welcomed. The Government will continue to maintain heritage as an important part of planning.

The Opposition has alleged repeatedly that this is a sneaky bill. So sneaky were the amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that we spoke about them in this House and briefed the Opposition about them. When we are trying to be sneaky we do it in such an upfront way! The Opposition has said that the Government is denying local communities a voice. Members opposite should listen to the voices of Burwood and Wagga Wagga. Burwood Council asked for these amendments so that the panel can do its development control plan and its contributions plan. It is precisely to assist a local council and a local community that the Government has introduced these amendments. Members opposite should listen to the views of the Wagga Wagga City Council. Just yesterday the mayor and the general manager issued a press release stating:

We highlighted the fact that Councillors and staff have developed a good working relationship with the Planning Panel.

Staff have learned a great deal from the arrangement, and the Panel themselves have demonstrated a strong commitment to the community and the City and desire to see the process for the delivery of the Local Environment Plan through.

Council supports the retention of the Planning Panel to ensure the continuity of good land use planning and development decisions, and we wanted the Minister to know we are committed to working with them

The Opposition is listening only to the voices of Ku-ring-gai, which means that this has more to do with Coalition preselections than serving the community. Listen to Wagga Wagga and Burwood! I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.