23rd October, 2024.
My contribution to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (State Significant Development) Bill 2024 will be brief. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces said:
The amendments will restore much‑needed certainty to make sure the planning system can continue to work as effectively as possible to deliver the infrastructure we need for over 60 State significant development projects worth around $50 billion in direct investment. Those State significant development projects include renewable energy, health, education, data centres, warehouse and distribution centres, mining and minerals, housing, and mixed-use developments.
While it may be true about the significant investment potential of these developments, in good conscience I cannot guarantee that the small communities who may be affected by this have their best interests served by the stroke of a pen. I fundamentally cannot support any more power being taken away from local communities that are reeling from the stripping of powers in their stakeholder consultations. This amendment would tip the balance even further. I look to each member in this place, whether they are in a party or Independent. How can they in good faith vote for this bill, which has such broad scope, without knowledge of those communities?
We talked about certainty, but my communities want the certainty that they can live just as they want to. Is this again the city versus the country, the metropolis versus the regions? This bill is far too broad, and the potential to affect future developments is too risky for this or any future government. That is not to say I am against any of those developments. Many would have enormous benefits. But the community must have a better say and be involved. In that way, we can find better outcomes. If any developments are of concern, the transparency will allow us to shine a light on them before it is too late. Looking at all the outcomes is much better than just concentrating on individual items.
If members think this will not happen to them and their communities, they should think again and perhaps ask a few of the former holders of my seat and former members for the electorates of Camden, Liverpool and other areas in Macarthur that have been failed by decisions made over the top of community desires without considering the cumulative effect. Those members are not here to tell the tale because their communities booted them out. That could be our future if we continue to enable the department and give it more control. Outcomes need to be great not only for State significant development projects but also for the communities we represent.