I contribute to debate on the Greater Cities Commission Repeal Bill 2023. Thankfully, unlike the member for Terrigal, my contribution will not be unlimited. I have 10 minutes, and I keep to.
Mr Jihad Dib: You can seek an extension.
No, I would not do that to you. The bill seeks to abolish the Greater Cities Commission and, under part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, transfers the strategic planning functions that currently sit within the commission to the secretary of the department, which is currently the planning secretary. A few months ago the Government announced that on 1 January 2024 the new Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure will be created. When it comes into effect, a lot of those strategic planning functions will move over to the new department.
To give a bit of history, I remember when the Greater Cities Commission was started. I think it was in 2016 or 2017, when I was a councillor on the Liverpool council. It was called the Greater Sydney Commission at the time. It sounded like a great idea at the time. One of the reasons was that there was a missing middle—that is a theme to do with planning and housing at the moment—when it came to planning in this State. Councils dealt with applications of a certain size, and then there were State significant ones, which were quite large. It effectively felt like there was a big gap between what councils were dealing with and what the State Government was dealing with. The Greater Sydney Commission, as it was called at the time, fulfilled a role there. If I recall, I think there were two Western Sydney districts. There was a northern-western Sydney district and a southern‑western Sydney district, and then they were all merged.
Yes, and then there were three cities, and then four and five and six. In my opinion, it had a lot of mission creep along the way. Of course, it did have some major functions, and I am happy to report that those major functions will come under the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. They include enabling a more coordinated response to emerging planning issues, improving consistency of decision-making and integrated planning outcomes, improving the capacity of the State to facilitate the delivery of housing and infrastructure in both metropolitan and regional areas more efficiently—a very important point that was discussed in question time earlier today, which I am sure will continue to be discussed throughout the week—and then, of course, removing red tape and improving strategic planning and coordination across the State.
Speaking of red tape and an area of red tape that is ripe for the picking—as we know, normally when a fruit is red, it is ripe for picking—we do have some in the planning department. A couple of weeks ago I was having a chat with the Premier, along with a small group of people in my electorate. He explained the planning system as it had been explained to him when he came into power. I had not heard it framed the way he explained it but once I had it made clear the need to make the system more efficient. If someone lodges a development application [DA], depending on what it is for, it might be a complying development and they might be able to get a private certifier; otherwise, the application might go to council. However, if there is a certain number of objections, it might go to a local planning panel. If it is over a certain number of objections, it might go to a regional planning panel. Depending on where it is in Sydney, it might have another authority come in. And then of course the Greater Cities Commission has some strategic oversight.
The point that I am trying to make is that we have a very complex planning system. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. What we need to do—and this bill goes some way towards doing that—is start to make the system more efficient and easier to understand. I have mums and dads who contact my office, and I also have major developers that are spruiking developments, especially in my part of town, who find this whole system frustrating and a headache and, at times, confusing. I am glad that the bill will go some way towards fixing that up.
As a councillor and as an MP, one of the things I have always been concerned about is making sure that we do not remove an important layer of independent advice to government. I can give reassurances that that will not be happening. Again, a lot of those powers end up going to the Minister and that takes care of that. The new Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, which will be created on 1 January next year, will ensure that there is still that coordination I spoke about between local government and State infrastructure planning. I am pleased to say that. Many of the people who worked in the team within the commission have now moved into the planning department and have brought with them their skills, experience and expertise.
To give members a prime example of the amount of confusion and layers of bureaucracy and red tape in the planning system, the Leppington Town Centre plan went out for exhibition about a month ago. That seeks to rezone the area around the Leppington train station, including where my wonderful new office is. But that has been a saga, to say the least. Initially the area was rezoned in 2013. That sought to primarily have a fair bit of employment in the area: land for bulky goods and warehousing—that kind of stuff. Then, with the announcement of the airport, it was thought that that was no longer appropriate and one of the main reasons that area had yet to be developed, so it went back to the drawing board.
Initially the signal was sent to both Camden and Liverpool councils, which administer that area, to come up with a plan. Some way through, that was then reefed off them by a State agency, which was going to look at it. I am not sure exactly what it did, but a couple of years later it then said, "No, change of plans—back to council." So Camden Council and Liverpool council have been working for the past two or three years on that plan and they have finally put it out for exhibition. I encourage everyone who is a stakeholder, including residents in the area, to have a good look at it and make a submission. But that points to how clunky the current planning system is. I commend the Minister and the Government for doing such a significant amount of work in such a short period to fix that and address the housing crisis in this State.
The member for Terrigal in his contribution spoke about consultation, major projects and things like that. I am happy to report that there are major projects in my neck of the woods that will not stop as a result of abolishing the Greater Cities Commission. We will still build an airport and we will still build a city around that airport. We do not need a Greater Cities Commission to build major projects. I am happy to chat with the member for Terrigal about how to continue to build strategic projects without a Greater Cities Commission. It is possible. He also made a comment about consultation. There has been significant consultation with people in both the industry and the planning sector, and obviously with the chief commissioner, to make sure that we get it right.
If there is one legacy the Greater Cities Commission will be remembered for, it will be its significant output of glossy brochures. It has led the way in thought leadership in the planning space, but I am happy to report that the thought leadership will still continue within the department. But, to be frank, the planning system is at a crossroads. We have seen enough thoughts and ideas. We have seen enough thought leadership; we now need some doing. I am happy to commend the Minister and this Government for getting on with the job. This is a significant piece in the puzzle. I commend the bill to the House.
