INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL

REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Tribunal Members

Dr Peter Boxall, Chairman Mr James Cox, CEO

Mr Simon Draper, Part-Time Member

Members of the Secretariat

Ms Lil Cullen, Ms Alexandra Lobb and Mr Matt Edgerton

At the Lyceum Theatre The Wesley Centre, 220 Pitt Street, Sydney

On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 9.30am

.4/12/2012 1 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Opening Comments 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much for coming. 4 I would like to welcome you all to this public roundtable 5 on IPART's red tape review of local government compliance 6 and enforcement. 7 8 My name is Peter Boxall. I am chair of IPART. I am 9 joined today by my fellow tribunal members. On my right is 10 Jim Cox, CEO and full-time member of the tribunal, and 11 on my left is Simon Draper, a member of the tribunal. 12 Assisting the tribunal today are IPART secretariat members 13 Lil Cullen, Alexandra Lobb and Matt Edgerton. 14 15 I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of 16 those who have taken the time and trouble to make a 17 submission to this review. Stakeholder submissions are 18 available to the public on our website. All submissions 19 received have been carefully considered by us in developing 20 our findings and recommendations. We will also consider 21 matters raised in the course of today's proceedings. 22 23 The purpose of today's roundtable is for us to seek 24 more information through a structured discussion. It will 25 allow interested parties the opportunity to comment on 26 matters arising from our issues paper and from the 27 submissions that we have received. The tribunal will not 28 be making any decisions today; rather this is part of our 29 information-gathering process. 30 31 After considering all of your comments and all of the 32 written submissions received, we will develop draft 33 recommendations and findings and subject them to further 34 public consultation through the release of a draft report. 35 We plan to release our draft report in March next year. 36 After considering submissions in response to this draft, we 37 will then provide the government with our final report by 38 the end of June 2013. 39 40 Many regulatory responsibilities in New South Wales 41 across a broad range of areas are delegated from the state 42 government to local government. This review looks at how 43 councils in New South Wales implement and enforce 44 regulations. 45 46 We will identify local government compliance and 47 enforcement practices that are imposing unnecessary costs .4/12/2012 2 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 on councils, businesses and/or the community. We will then 2 make recommendations to reduce or eliminate these 3 unnecessary costs. This includes recommendations to remove 4 any impediments to better local government implementation 5 and enforcement practices. We are seeking specific 6 practical solutions to reduce or eliminate unnecessary 7 regulatory costs. In doing so, we need your input. 8 9 The focus of our review is on how local government in 10 New South Wales administers and enforces regulations rather 11 than on the regulations themselves or their policy 12 rationale. 13 14 The terms of reference for this review require us to 15 have regard to a range of matters. These include: 16 Ways to improve governance on compliance and 17 enforcement including local government roles and 18 responsibilities relative to the New South Wales 19 government and the quality of interaction between state 20 government agencies and local government; 21 Ways to improve the capacity and capability of local 22 government to undertake its regulatory responsibilities; 23 Ways to improve the quality of regulatory 24 administration including consistency of approach, economies 25 of scale and mutual recognition across local government 26 areas; 27 The culture of regulatory services, including the 28 extent to which local government follows best practice 29 regulatory principles and approaches; 30 Issues relevant to the areas of planning, building and 31 construction, parking and road transport, public health and 32 safety, environmental regulation and companion animal 33 management; 34 Best practice approaches in New South Wales and other 35 jurisdictions including the merits of adopting the leading 36 practices identified in the Productivity Commission's 2012 37 report on local government as a regulator; and, finally, 38 Ways to ensure regular assessment of regulatory 39 performance. 40 41 We are also required to ensure our recommendations 42 produce net benefits for New South Wales. We are conscious 43 that there are a number of other related reviews currently 44 taking place. These include reviews of the Independent 45 Local Government Review Panel, the Local Government Act, 46 the New South Wales planning assistance review, the 47 Companion Animals Taskforce. We will keep abreast of these .4/12/2012 3 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 reviews and consider their scope and any available findings 2 or recommendations in drafting our recommendations. We 3 will seek to ensure that, as much as possible, we 4 complement rather than duplicate other related reviews 5 chaired by the New South Wales government. 6 7 Before we commence today's proceedings, I would like 8 to outline the process for this roundtable. We have split 9 the day into three sessions. The first two sessions look 10 at specific regulatory areas. The first session considers 11 the questions of what specific local government compliance 12 and enforcement practices are imposing unnecessary costs on 13 business and the community in the areas of planning and 14 building and construction, and what specific 15 recommendations can IPART make to reduce or eliminate 16 these unnecessary costs? 17 18 The second session also seeks to identify unnecessary 19 regulatory burdens in specific areas and recommendations to 20 address these burdens. In the second session, we will 21 consider the regulatory areas of the environment, public 22 health and safety, parking and road transport, and 23 companion animal management as well as any other specific 24 areas raised by stakeholders here today. 25 26 The third session considers systemic or general 27 sources of unnecessary regulatory burden and 28 recommendations to address these burdens; that is, 29 potential recommendations that will address common 30 underlying concerns across a number of regulatory areas. 31 These relate to issues such as local government capacity 32 and capability, the quality of the interaction and 33 coordination between state and local governments, and the 34 extent of cooperation and consistency across councils. 35 36 For each session, IPART's secretariat will give a 37 brief introduction. I will then invite participants at the 38 table to provide comment on the topic. I ask that you 39 please limit your opening comments to a maximum of five 40 minutes. You will then have an opportunity to provide 41 further comment, if you wish, subject to time constraints. 42 43 Once the participants at the table have put forward 44 their position, I will then invite members of the audience 45 to make statements or ask questions. I will endeavour to 46 give everyone who wishes to do so the opportunity to speak. 47 .4/12/2012 4 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 There will be breaks in between each session, for 2 which we will provide some catering. 3 4 I should advise you that today's hearing will be 5 recorded by our transcribers. Therefore, to assist the 6 transcribers, I ask that, on all occasions, you please 7 identify yourself and, where applicable, the organisation 8 for whom you are speaking. I also ask that you speak 9 clearly and loudly. A copy of the transcript will be made 10 available on our website next week. 11 12 I will now hand over to Lil Cullen from the IPART 13 secretariat, who will introduce the first session's 14 discussion on local government compliance and enforcement 15 practices in the areas of planning and building and 16 construction. Thank you. 17 18 Session 1: What specific recommendations should IPART 19 make to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens in 20 the areas of: Planning; 21 Building and construction. 22 23 MS CULLEN: Thank you, Peter. As you will be aware, the 24 government has commissioned holistic reform via the 25 planning review in this area. Our terms of reference for 26 this review direct us to maximise opportunities from the 27 current planning review. The planning review has released 28 a Green Paper outlining its reforms, and a White Paper 29 detailing those reforms is due at the end of this year - so 30 shortly. This is to include reforms to building and 31 construction that were not, I believe, as well fleshed out 32 in the Green Paper. 33 34 I will start with a summary of some of the key issues 35 and concerns raised in submissions in the planning, 36 building and construction area. 37 38 A key concern was delays and costs in processing 39 development approvals and the completion of buildings due 40 to a range of factors, such as: 41 Lack of skilled or experienced staff in councils; 42 Development consent conditions being costly, 43 inconsistent, onerous, poorly drafted, above the Building 44 Code of Australia; 45 The complexity of regulations in this area; 46 A failure to take enforcement action on the part of 47 councils and the Building Professionals Board; .4/12/2012 5 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Requiring concurrent approvals from state agencies 2 adding further delays; and 3 A duplication of assessment processes where aspects of 4 developments are referred to state agencies or special 5 panels for assessment, but are then assessed again by 6 councils. 7 8 Other planning concerns raised in submissions included 9 difficulty with rezoning especially for industrial to 10 commercial land. With development control plans, or DCPs, 11 there was concern about a lack of uniformity in these 12 instruments, and there are often onerous and conflicting 13 requirements. Inconsistent advice and inconsistent forms 14 were cited. A common example given was all the different 15 DA forms that different councils have. Inconsistent and 16 excessive fees were raised. Some examples given in 17 submissions were pre-DA-lodgement meeting fees, fees to 18 notify neighbours of DA, bonds and levies. 19 20 Another key concern raised in submissions was the risk 21 averse culture of council planners. Submissions also 22 raised concerns with specific overlaps and duplications in 23 regulation. Examples provided were overlaps in the Local 24 Government Act and the Planning Act in relation to 25 manufactured homes, stormwater drainage; in relation to the 26 Roads Act and the Planning Act, footpath, restaurants; and 27 in relation to trading hours, the regulation of trading 28 hours under development consent conditions and also under 29 the Retail Trading Act. There was also concern about 30 unnecessary costly and onerous awnings policies being 31 placed in certain circumstances. 32 33 Some other building and construction concerns raised 34 in submissions included: 35 Alleged conflicts of interest in the building 36 certification system; 37 Unclear and poor regulatory relationships between 38 councils, the Building Professionals Board and private 39 certifiers; 40 A lack of understanding and clarity about the private 41 certifiers' role and what they are responsible for onsite 42 versus what councils are responsible for onsite; and 43 A general lack of understanding on the part of the 44 public as to who to complain to about what. 45 46 There was also concern raised by councils as to the 47 cost of councils undertaking regulatory functions in this .4/12/2012 6 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 area; alleged undercharging or anti-competitive charging by 2 councils for their building certification services; and the 3 impact of accreditation requirements on council building 4 certifiers in relation to costs and their ability to 5 recruit. 6 7 I will now summarise some of the potential reforms and 8 suggestions raised in the submissions. I will start with 9 suggestions raised in submissions, which we anticipate will 10 be addressed by the planning review. The Green Paper has 11 indicated reforms to harmonise and simplify planning, 12 building and construction regulations and to simplify, 13 consolidate and standardise development consent conditions. 14 15 Other planning reforms outlined in the Green Paper 16 included in relation to development control plans that 17 these will be removed and replaced with local land use 18 plans or possibly also model or standardised guidelines 19 where necessary. 20 21 The Green Paper also outlined some initiatives to 22 increase skills and to achieve cultural reform, to move 23 from a risk averse process driven culture to achieving good 24 planning outcomes. These initiatives range from having a 25 champion in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure 26 with new positions created there and partnerships with the 27 Planning Institute of Australia to deliver training and 28 other initiatives. 29 30 In the submissions, most people supported increased use of 31 code complying development and exempt development, 32 which the Green Paper has also indicated will be pursued. 33 The Green Paper also indicated easier rezoning processes. 34 35 Some other initiatives that the Green Paper has 36 outlined it will also address were: 37 Ideas to roll out e-planning or online development 38 approvals, for example, expanded use of the Electronic 39 Housing Code; 40 For the state to provide legally reliable land use 41 information through e-portal; 42 For the standardisation of development application 43 forms - this will largely be achieved through creating 44 online development approvals so application forms will need 45 to be standardised; and 46 Greater use of independent planning panels. 47 .4/12/2012 7 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Some other building and construction reforms which we 2 anticipate the White Paper may address are: 3 Better delineation and clarity of responsibilities; 4 Mandating cost benefit analysis for development 5 consent conditions above the Building Code of Australia 6 along the lines of the Victorian 'gateway' approach; 7 The removal of the existing discretion - so in future 8 requiring certifiers to issue notices where they discover 9 breaches on both the owner and the builder and to serve 10 those on councils for follow-up enforcement action. 11 12 I will now move on to some of the potential reforms 13 that were raised in the submissions which we believe will 14 not be addressed through the planning review. These 15 include: 16 Greater transparency and criteria for setting fees by 17 councils; 18 To encourage the use of a particular provision in the 19 Planning Act which would enable councils to give an order 20 negating the need for separate development approval where 21 public safety is an issue, and the example given was 22 retaining walls; 23 The use of flying squads of experienced planners to 24 assist councils and to have regional shared services of 25 planners to address shortages; 26 To remove the ability to control trading hours through 27 development consent conditions; 28 The adoption of a best practice awnings policy across 29 all councils. An example given of a best practice policy 30 was the one developed by Canada Bay; 31 To develop a standard code for waste management on 32 construction sites, instead of the existing system where 33 each site needs to have an individual waste management 34 plan; 35 Use of a council ombudsman, or alternative appeal 36 mechanisms, to assist in dealing with complaints; 37 To exempt from the need for development approval 38 certain amateur radio antennas, masts, et cetera, which 39 meet certain standards; and 40 The use of existing performance reporting to the 41 Department of Planning and Infrastructure so that data can 42 be used to follow up and assist poor performing councils. 43 44 Some other potential reforms raised in submissions in 45 relation to building and construction were: 46 Council fees for certification to be set to recover 47 efficient costs; .4/12/2012 8 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 To give the Building Professionals Board and councils 2 more teeth - for example, higher fines, lower burdens of 3 proof for some offences, stop work orders, or additional 4 funding; 5 To enable councils to recoup efficient costs of 6 enforcement; 7 For there to be greater visibility of poor performers; 8 for example, by linking the Building Professional Board's 9 enforcement record with its accredited certifiers register. 10 11 Another idea in some submissions was to create a 12 Building Commission, like Victoria, combining the BPB and 13 New South Wales Fair Trading function. 14 15 I will now conclude by leaving up the questions for 16 session 1, which are in relation to planning, building and 17 construction: 18 19 What compliance and enforcement practices 20 are imposing unnecessary costs or burdens? 21 22 What recommendations should IPART make to 23 reduce or eliminate these unnecessary costs 24 or burdens or improve local government 25 compliance and enforcement practices? 26 27 Thank you very much. 28 29 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Lil. We will now 30 take comments or questions from around the table. Michael, 31 would you like to start for the Housing Industry 32 Association. 33 34 MR BUCKLEY: Thank you. Michael Buckley, from the Housing 35 Industry Association. There are a couple of points that 36 our members continually talk to us about. With regard to 37 the simple procedure of standard development application 38 forms, I don't know why that has not happened. I know 39 councils have tried for that over many years. Standard 40 application forms obviously can make it easier for people 41 if they understand from council to council what are the 42 requirements, what are the most important details required 43 for that application. 44 45 I would link that also to a number of other 46 requirements, such as waste management plans, that are 47 individual for each site. Councils make the applicants .4/12/2012 9 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 guess how and where and what amount of information and 2 material is to be taken from a site. Often that is 3 guesswork at the particular time of the application. 4 I think a lot of that could stem back to the standard 5 condition of consent that links to a development control 6 plan that specifically details what is required for that 7 waste management proposal. 8 9 I suppose, with all of us, it has been consistent 10 across the board that there is too much duplication. 11 Having worked in local government for many years and then 12 having crossed over to the dark side, you actually take 13 things from a different view, especially when you are 14 within council and you have clients from the other side 15 just looking at you saying, "Why? Why do we have these 16 requirements that differ from council to council?" I will 17 leave it there, but there are a lot of other things that 18 will rear their heads in the course of the day. 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Michael. Would 21 anyone like to volunteer to go next? 22 23 MR JOHNSON: Chris Johnson from the Urban Taskforce. 24 Prior to this role, I did work in the Department of 25 Planning for some time and was involved in some of the 26 issues for the electronic codes, et cetera, which I think 27 are important. Before that I was the Government Architect. 28 29 We, from the Urban Taskforce, understand from the 30 development industry, the property industry, how to try and 31 get projects to happen. There is no doubt in our mind that 32 there is an overly complex and confusing planning system at 33 the moment that is moving New South Wales backwards 34 compared with other states. 35 36 We do an assessment on quarterly building construction 37 across Australia. I think at the moment Victoria is 38 spending about $1,000 per head, Queensland, $800 per head, 39 and New South Wales about $550 per head. So we are pretty 40 well half of what Victoria is spending. A lot of people 41 associate this with an overly complex approval process, 42 planning system that has become more and more complex. 43 44 Obviously the government is moving quite strongly in 45 terms of both the local government independent review and 46 the review of the planning system and we are very positive 47 about the directions. .4/12/2012 10 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 We have raised some areas - I think there are some 3 answers that could help here - and one is inconsistent 4 advice. Michael just mentioned this. There does seem to 5 us to be many different approaches from different councils 6 about planning issues and particularly DCPs. They have 7 been quantified recently by the government in terms of 8 their status. Our belief is that there are too many small 9 groups of planners in councils all over the place and a 10 grouping of planners in some sort of shared service centre 11 with a centre of excellence across six state councils, like 12 the Hunter Council shared service centre, could be a very 13 positive move, we believe, to get a more rigorous approach 14 to that. 15 16 There are also successive delays in determination, and 17 the best way to solve this is to have a deemed approval 18 after a certain period of time. That puts pressure on 19 everybody so that, on the basis that the application is 20 accepted, it must be close to fitting the actual rules. 21 I think that would be a positive thing. 22 23 There is a fair bit of duplication of assessment 24 processes across government and local government. That 25 clearly needs to be rationalised. I think the two key 26 reviews are probably doing a fair bit about that. 27 28 There are also - I think this was mentioned in the 29 introduction - a lot of requests for unnecessary 30 investigations and reports. What seems to have happened is 31 a very risk averse culture has developed in the area of 32 planning, which means that people want more and more 33 reports to cover themselves in terms of decision making. 34 35 The answer to a lot of this, I think, is in the Green 36 Paper, and hopefully in the White Paper, and that is to 37 have far more code assessable developments, whereby once 38 the rules are set up-front, it is quite clear whether you 39 do or do not fit those rules and you can get a very quick 40 process. 41 42 Our belief is that the system for planning certainly, 43 and partly for the building side of it as well, has become 44 overly confusing and adaptable and adjusted by many people 45 and a much simpler and straightforward system will help. 46 Thank you. 47 .4/12/2012 11 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks you, Chris. Shaun, would you like 2 to go next? 3 4 MR McBRIDE: Shaun McBride, Local Government and Shires 5 Associations. As an opening comment, I would like to point 6 out that our recommendation to this inquiry was that the 7 planning and building matters be left to the very 8 comprehensive planning review. That said, obviously some 9 good feedback will come back from here, but we thought 10 there was some duplication in this. 11 12 Certainly, we recognise and advocate an overhaul of 13 the existing planning system. We recognise the problems, 14 the complexity and the resulting confusion. We generally 15 support the direction that the review has been taking so 16 far. 17 18 We recognise the concerns of the industry and the 19 public. We have many concerns of our own, including the 20 regulation of private certifiers, issues relating to 21 concurrence, and so on, many of which have been mentioned 22 on the slides. 23 24 We support streamlining and simplification but, as 25 local government, we must also protect the community's 26 interest. So there is a balance between regulation and the 27 community interest there, and that is often difficult to 28 get that right. 29 30 On a couple of specifics, in relation to awnings, 31 I notice that the Department of Planning issued a draft 32 policy and practice note last week. That has gone out to 33 councils for comment. It is designed to address 34 inconsistency in policies and so on. 35 36 With regard to the DCPs, we have had legislative 37 amendments recently which have effectively reduced the 38 status of the DCPs to a guideline document. 39 40 In relation to simplifying the zoning, that same set 41 of legislative amendments has certainly made the rezoning 42 process easier. That just indicates that the government, 43 partly through the review process or parallel to the review 44 process, has already been addressing some of these 45 concerns. It is a moving game, and I just wanted to point 46 that out. 47 .4/12/2012 12 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Turning to e-planning, yes, we are big supporters of 2 that. We partnered with the Department of Planning in the 3 e-housing code projects. I am very pleased and proud to 4 have worked with the department on that. But the broader 5 roll-out of e-planning will require government involvement, 6 government assistance, so we look forward to that. 7 8 I think that is all I have to say, thank you. 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Shaun. We will have 11 Corin Moffatt, from the Department of Local Government, 12 and then Luke Aitken, from NSW Business Chamber. 13 14 MS MOFFATT: Thank you. I will leave my planning 15 colleagues to talk more specifically about planning and 16 building, but I thought it might be worth saying something 17 about the broad local government market reform agenda 18 because a few people have touched on that. 19 20 I think the IPART review will provide a very valuable 21 input to that reform process. Peter mentioned the 22 Independent Local Government Review Panel, which is 23 essentially looking at the government structure and the 24 boundaries of local government in New South Wales. It is 25 doing that in the context of councils' capacity to deliver 26 services and infrastructure efficiently and effectively in 27 a way that meets communities' needs, and essentially it is 28 about how do we create stronger local government. 29 30 I think the IPART review is providing really useful 31 evidence that this is necessary to give the sort of 32 messages we are seeing about capacity of resources in 33 council but also the relationship and some of the 34 complexities between state and local government. 35 36 The second key part of our reform agenda is, as you 37 heard earlier, a look at the Local Government Act and we 38 have set up the taskforce to do that. That is really about 39 again creating stronger local government by trying to 40 develop a more modern and streamlined Act. 41 42 Again, through the work that IPART has done so far, we 43 have seen some evidence that that is necessary given some 44 of the complexity in the system and the need to clarify 45 roles and responsibilities and the Act will certainly look 46 at that. Whilst there is a clear desire in that process 47 for an Act that is less prescriptive and more enabling, .4/12/2012 13 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 I think that presents a bit of a tension in the context of 2 some of the discussions we are having now about the need 3 for greater consistency and less complexity and there will 4 be a challenge to align some of those objectives over the 5 coming months. 6 7 It is worth saying that both of these initiatives form 8 part of what we call Destination 2036, which is trying to 9 create stronger local government. I think it is important 10 to recognise that that reform process came out of an 11 acknowledgment in the sector of the need for change. There 12 was an acknowledgment about the lack of skills in some 13 councils, about the need to build capacity and about the 14 need to explore different models of doing things including 15 resource sharing. 16 17 I think there is certainly an appetite in the sector 18 and that sort of acknowledgment of the need for change 19 provides a really good opportunity for this sort of work to 20 try to involve local government in this state. 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Corin. Luke? 23 24 MR AITKEN: Luke Aitken, from the NSW Business Chamber. 25 I think people have generally sort of covered off on the 26 concerns of most groups when it comes to planning, building 27 and construction. Particularly for the small businesses, 28 it is a huge challenge. We often find that, when a 29 business is growing or expanding, when people actually 30 start to look at building their business, growing their 31 shopfront, that is when they fall into that planning, 32 building compliance framework. They see a very big public 33 good that is coming out of their plans - they will expand 34 their business and build more jobs for the community - but 35 they end up finding themselves forced into a system of 36 compliance and they are not really assisted through the 37 process. 38 39 We have spoken about the Planning Act review, but what 40 we have always tried to emphasise that that review is a 41 system review. We need to look at it holistically and look 42 at how we can build things, such as - as Chris Johnson was 43 saying - a centre of excellence for planners. We need to 44 look at actually supporting and encouraging people to do 45 the things that the planning system is there for and 46 designed to do, which is to help facilitate reasonable and 47 sustainable growth in the community. I will leave it .4/12/2012 14 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 there, thanks. 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Luke. I was wondering 4 whether Chris Mills, from Coles, would like to go next. 5 6 MR MILLS: Chris Mills, from Coles. I tend to operate in 7 the property development area of the retail business. 8 I would support Mr Johnson in what he said about planning 9 regulation in New South Wales. It is a nightmare. It is 10 not getting any better; in fact, it seems to be getting 11 worse. I don't know how many people in this room have 12 tried to get a DA on their house. Can you imagine what it 13 is like trying to get it on a supermarket in an area in 14 Sydney? It is just beyond the pale. 15 16 We have, I think, 159 councils in New South Wales; is 17 that about right? 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: There are 152. 20 21 MR MILLS: I am sorry, 152. They must amalgamated a few. 22 We have a population of 6 million. Why are we doing this? 23 It is just crazy. Every council has its own regulations 24 covering not just building, but food and everything else. 25 You then have a New South Wales Retail Trading Act, which 26 sits above the top, which covers a lot of stuff. Every 27 state has its own legislation. The ACT has its own 28 regulations again, so we operate in New South Wales and in 29 the ACT and have slightly different things to deal with - 30 and I could go on. 31 32 The cost of managing this is just extraordinary and we 33 have teams of people dealing with this stuff. It is just 34 completely unnecessary, it really is. It really has to be 35 driven from the top down. I don't see it coming from the 36 bottom up. 37 38 I remember - I have been in this business quite a long 39 time now - 15 years ago the Department of Planning 40 introduced, with big fanfare, a simplified planning system 41 for DAs. Development applications used to be actually 42 quite simple - some architectural, some shadow diagrams, 43 maybe a traffic thing. It would not cost you a huge amount 44 of money to do it. Then they put in this process and said, 45 "We are going to simplify it." It was the exact opposite - 46 the exact opposite. A DA now costs hundreds and hundreds 47 or thousands of dollars to put up. Then you have to go .4/12/2012 15 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 through all the hurdles and they can stop the clock 2 whenever they want - which they do. "You have not provided 3 this." They don't like it, change it and start again. The 4 clock is off. So you run up your 40 days and if you really 5 want to run the risk of going to court, you do it. It is 6 something we do very rarely, but it is something we find 7 more and more we have to do, unfortunately. So that's a 8 pretty quick snapshot I would say. 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Chris. I thought 11 we might hear from Anna and/or John from the Department 12 of Planning, and then hear from someone from one of the 13 councils. 14 15 MS CHUBB: Anna Chubb, from the Department of Planning 16 and Infrastructure. I want to say, firstly, that it is really 17 good that this review is happening at the same time as the 18 wider planning system review. It is really good to see 19 that the issues being raised in submissions to IPART are 20 pretty much the same as those that we have been looking at 21 as well. It has been really good also to have that 22 feedback at this point in time while we are preparing for 23 the White Paper and also to see that the themes and the 24 issues are the same. So it really does enforce back to the 25 department about the key issues. 26 27 As a result, from what I am hearing around the table, 28 and also through the review, we will absolutely be 29 addressing the issue of consistency in the planning system 30 review, and the issue of complexity as well. Time frames, 31 transparency, certainty, these are all key issues that have 32 been raised with the department over many years. You will 33 have seen that they were raised in the Green Paper and you 34 will see those issues being addressed quite strongly and in 35 detail in the White Paper. 36 37 I want to also support the point that was raised about 38 the fact that this is a system review. This is not just 39 about the Planning Act. It is not about regulation. It is 40 about practice and culture and doing things better, on a 41 much more collegiate approach across government and 42 between state government and local government and the 43 community. So the planning review is doing a lot to cover the 44 issues that have been raised. 45 46 When the White Paper comes out, I think you will see 47 that a lot of these issues have been covered. That is just .4/12/2012 16 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 the next stage in the review. Then there will be the 2 roll-out and the implementation and a lot of the issues to 3 do with culture and practice and consistency. When we 4 actually start writing the content of the new planning 5 system, you will see a lot of these issues being addressed 6 as well. We will be working closely with IPART over the 7 next few months to make sure that the issues that you are 8 seeing will be incorporated into the planning system 9 review. 10 11 I will hand over now to John Hudson to talk about 12 e-planning. 13 14 MR HUDSON: John Hudson from the Department of Planning. 15 In the Green Paper, I think building was not much more than 16 a footnote in the whole document. One of my 17 responsibilities in the department is working with the 18 building regulation team who look after the Building Code 19 of Australia. I think what we have managed to do by our 20 own efforts within the department, and based on the 21 consultation that has been happening across government and 22 with industry and the community, is to put quite an 23 emphasis on building in the White Paper and take it to a 24 far more substantial account of the requirement to 25 harmonise planning and building in New South Wales, which 26 is certainly something that needs to be addressed. 27 28 I would re-emphasise the comments that have been made 29 around the table with regard to: local authorities 30 requiring detailed building documentation at the 31 development stage and the need to address these issues; 32 local authorities having plans which go beyond the National 33 Construction Code, and the appeal to some sort of gateway 34 process; lack of standardisation in the processes and 35 procedures associated with design approval; certification, 36 commissioning and ongoing performance of buildings. 37 38 Talking about cultural change, there is the issue of 39 giving practitioners support and giving them education and 40 the resources so they can actually function effectively in 41 the planning and building space. I think those are all 42 matters which we have tried to bring to the fore in 43 building matters in the White Paper. 44 45 I will just emphasise the importance of our 46 standardisation. What that brings is the opportunity of 47 greater uptake of technology in the planning system. .4/12/2012 17 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 e-planning provides standardisation, and I concur with the 2 different forms and the like. I would point out that the 3 Electronic Housing Code is an attempt to do two things - 4 one, looking at a greater uptake of complying development; 5 and, two, providing very clear guidelines as to the 6 information that is required in putting in an application 7 online. 8 9 It has been, in part, a difficult process with the 10 Electronic Housing Code because of the complexity of the 11 content that we have had to work with, but I think it 12 has proven to be effective in local government. As 13 Shaun McBride mentioned, the Local Government and Shires 14 Association has been a great partner in this project where 15 we have been able to get the support of local government in 16 appealing to these state systems where standardisation 17 brings efficiencies for them and brings efficiencies for 18 the government. Thank you. 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, John. I was going 21 to ask Roman or David and then Bill from the Institute of 22 Building Surveyors. Roman? 23 24 MR WERESZCZYNSKI: Roman Wereszczynski, from 25 Randwick Council. I wish to make some comments - I will try 26 to keep them brief - in relation to the planning, building 27 certification and regulation components. Firstly, in my 28 opinion, I agree the planning system is extremely complex 29 and time consuming and, as Chris Mills was saying, very 30 onerous for business. 31 32 However, I do not necessarily believe that the 33 complying development certificate process is appropriate 34 for many types of development. I think there is such a 35 wide gap between development that goes through the DA 36 process which has many checks and balances, many 37 requirements to have a controlled plans, compared with 38 complying development, which is quite a basic process. It 39 is a big jump between the two. 40 41 A lot of complying development can and will, when it 42 is expanded, have a significant impact upon adjoining 43 development, particularly residential development. 44 I personally believe a fast-tracked DA process would be 45 more appropriate for that smaller scale development, 46 perhaps using standardised development control plans, 47 conditions of consent, et cetera. .4/12/2012 18 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 Regional development control plans and regional codes 3 set or provisions for exemption from complying development 4 may also be of benefit to make them, I guess, more suitable 5 for the particular area. 6 7 The one size fits all approach for exempt and 8 complying development in country areas and regional areas, 9 and even in outer Sydney compared with inner Sydney, is a 10 totally different kettle of fish. It may not impact on 11 someone in the outer areas, but the impact in an 12 established urban area can be quite significant. 13 14 In relation to building certification, I think, as we 15 have identified, the roles between councils and certifiers 16 could be better addressed and clear lines of authority and 17 responsibility provided. We need to make developers and 18 builders more accountable. We have talked a lot about 19 regulation here, but we are sort of forgetting the point 20 that we would not need a lot of this regulation if everyone 21 did the right thing. 22 23 It is quite clear that the system has allowed for 24 builders and developers to do the wrong thing, knowing that 25 they can be able to get away with it with a slap over the 26 knuckles. Obviously that is one thing that defeats the 27 integrity of the planning process, and, secondly, it 28 results in great and significant community dissatisfaction. 29 30 We need provisions to ensure that a development is 31 consistent with the development consent, particularly 32 around about the time of issuing the occupation 33 certificate. Contrary to popular belief, there are no 34 current requirements that require a development to be 35 consistent with the development consent at that point in 36 time. 37 38 One of the suggestions was that certifiers issue a 39 notice in all cases and then that would get passed on to 40 council. I personally believe that is totally the wrong 41 process. The issue of a notice would simply merely 42 transfer the responsibility for dealing with whatever that 43 matter may be to the council without any assessment of the 44 impact upon local government and its resources. It 45 absolves the certifier from taking any responsibility for 46 the development and for ensuring that it complies with the 47 development consent and the construction certificate. .4/12/2012 19 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 I think there is scope for a different type of process 3 whereby certifiers can issue directions and introduce 4 additional penalty provisions if those directions are not 5 complied with and, after a given period of time, if it is 6 not resolved, then the matter could be referred to council 7 for appropriate action. Councils should not be left to 8 clean up the mess from dodgy builders, developers and 9 potentially incompetent certifiers in some cases. Having 10 said that, I have Peter Antcliffe sitting nearby. I have 11 to say there are very many certifiers who are also very 12 competent too. 13 14 In relation to the regulation side of things, some 15 degree of regulations and requirements is obviously 16 necessary to maintain public health and safety and building 17 fire safety standards. There has been quite a bit of media 18 coverage regarding that and I guess there will be a bit 19 more in the near future. The key is to achieve the right 20 balance and to ensure that the particular regulatory 21 requirements are necessary, justifiable, practical and 22 achievable. 23 24 Councils need to have the ability to recover the costs 25 of their regulatory activities and I agree that there is 26 scope in the presentation for increasing fines and greater 27 flexibility for councils. 28 29 Other than that, the only other comment in relation to 30 the presentation that I would make is that the removal of 31 trading hours is a concern. I am not sure what the intent 32 of that was, but councils impose conditions of consent 33 regarding the hours of operation for a particular business 34 in many, many cases mostly to reduce or manage the impact 35 upon nearby development, particularly residential premises. 36 If you are dealing with a hotel and the hours of operation 37 of the premises and outdoor dining areas or beer gardens, 38 it is significant to manage the impact on the nearby 39 residents. Thank you. 40 41 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, Roman. Could we 42 have Bill and then Peter. 43 44 MR BURNS: Bill Burns, I am the executive officer with the 45 Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. We represent 46 building surveyors who work in the public sector and those 47 who work in the private sector. There is a lot of history .4/12/2012 20 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 between councils and certifiers, so it is a difficult job 2 to represent both parties. 3 4 I think many of the issues have been mentioned in the 5 detail and we do not have too many problems with the papers 6 that are coming out and the issues that have been raised in 7 a lot of the general discussion. We do have an issue with 8 the Green Paper, and that is it has dealt principally with 9 the planning and appraisals. However, it really ignored 10 the building end, the certification end and the compliance 11 end. I think now we are moving to the situation where that 12 is a major thing. There has to be improvement, in the 13 public interest, for the efficiency of government and the 14 efficiency of local government and certifier systems. 15 16 Stepping back, when the certification system was 17 brought in, it was brought in on the basis of creating 18 competition for councils. I think councils improved 19 greatly through that. However, we have a legacy that the 20 competition also sharpens up some of the issues of where is 21 the enemy and how do we defeat the enemy, so we stay up top 22 on the exercise? I think we have to move away from seeing 23 it as being competition between those two systems. If we 24 were to move to a situation where those systems are seen 25 as resources to each other and move along in that 26 direction, I think we would be more successful. 27 28 We know the system is very complicated. No-one has 29 any arguments about the complication of the system. 30 Unfortunately I go back a long while, when it was a single 31 drawing that was required for a DA. 32 33 I think we have to be very firm about how much 34 complication we may be putting in again. We are all 35 talking about a lot of detail. We have to get in the big 36 picture stuff and then hope some of the detail flows 37 through. The complications that Mr and Mrs Smith face are 38 overwhelming for them. We have brought in complying 39 development. It has its problems. It is really going back 40 to the system, which was very simple years ago, where they 41 were simply looking at four or five major issues that 42 affected the community in terms of shadowing, privacy, 43 block size and floor plan sizes, and then we had the 44 regulations in construction. 45 46 Unless we get some system that people can understand, 47 we will fail again because we will get so tied up with the .4/12/2012 21 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 technology of where we are going. The technology must 2 assist us in making it simple. 3 4 With regard to the issues that we have in the two 5 systems, yes, we need to harmonise them; yes, we need to 6 have them working as a unit. We have simple little 7 problems where a council is concerned that the certifiers' 8 role finishes here and we have taken over. We support 9 that. We support the fact that the certifier must follow 10 the rules, but when he gets to a position that there will 11 be a prosecution, he has a problem. We have to prevent 12 these things and make them better and we can do that. But 13 we have to be mindful that it has to be understood that it 14 is a fault system; otherwise, we will be going back and 15 looking at history again. Thank you. 16 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bill. We will hear next from 18 Peter Antcliffe, then Yasmin from the Office of the Small 19 Business Commissioner, and John from the Office of Fair 20 Trading. 21 22 MR ANTCLIFFE: My name is Peter Antcliffe. I represent 23 the Association of Accredited Certifiers. First off we 24 think the content of the Green Paper and the White Paper 25 has some good weight and it will get there in the end. We 26 will have to tweak it and adjust it. 27 28 Being a certifier myself, we are at the end of all 29 this. We are the ones who issue the construction 30 certificate. We are the ones who do the inspection. We 31 are the ones who read the DA consent conditions to try to 32 interpret what has happened in the lead-up to our site 33 inspection. Then also, at the end of the job, we issue an 34 occupation certificate. 35 36 So we are the ones at the end where, if we do not 37 get this through right, it is a great stress to the 38 certifiers - be they council or private - to try to put all 39 the jigsaw together and issue the OC at the end, whether it 40 be for a shopping centre or a house for somebody to live 41 in. 42 43 I could go on for hours, but five minutes is what you 44 have given me. I 100 per cent agree with Roman in relation 45 to a number of points. There is a clear role with 46 councils. Not every development should be a CDC. A lot of 47 developments must go to council for a DA. We assess .4/12/2012 22 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 complying developments regularly. I have done over 2 200 each year. With some of them, I am scratching my head 3 saying, "But how are they allowed to do that?" You can 4 see the problems inherent in the CDC, whether it impacts 5 on a neighbour, or people are just playing games. They 6 love putting multiple applications together. They have 7 a team of lawyers structuring it, and we have to assess 8 what is in front of us. That is where I think it is 9 really important with standardisation of forms and 10 applications and checklists to really basically enhance the 11 CDC process. 12 13 We have a lot of changes coming up too, which are 14 forcing people underground. We see this every day. People 15 come in for an application. We will give them a whole 16 range of problems associated with that proposal, and they 17 will disappear. They turn around and say, "I will get a 18 BCA consultant on this", and you know they have just gone 19 underground because it is too difficult. People do want to 20 do the right thing. When they approach and ask their 21 questions and you give them the outcome of their questions 22 and a checklist and all the application forms, many people 23 just freak out. People have their time frames and their 24 own responsibilities. 25 26 I had a guy kill himself about three months ago. He 27 had his restaurant, went through a DA. We did our 28 checklist and we could not make it work. He started 29 without consent. Council closed him down. Here we had a 30 guy, a young entrepreneur, trying to get a new restaurant 31 going. It looked really good. The concept was actually 32 quite solid, but it could not be approved in the time frame 33 we had. The next thing we knew was, three months later, he 34 was dead. 35 36 The decisions we make here today directly affect the life of 37 somebody. We are looking at small businesses and large 38 businesses, obviously, with the GFC as well. We have a range 39 of fire-safety upgrades that have been thrown into the legislation 40 over the last two years. We have disability access upgrades. 41 We have building fire-safety upgrades for compliant 42 development and now the introduction 43 of another one looking at buildings built prior to 1993. 44 45 All those things are different. With building stock 46 and upgraded building stock, complying development will be 47 a very powerful piece of legislation and tool that .4/12/2012 23 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 accredited certifiers and councils can actually approve 2 development, but we also have to be careful that not too 3 much power is placed on individuals. We need some help, 4 and we will come back to the education of certifiers, how 5 many certifiers are actually in the industry and how much 6 resources do they have? We will send emails out to 7 different bodies and will still not get the comments back 8 in the time frames that we need to deliver our scope of 9 services. 10 11 It is the same for counsels as well. When things 12 start going wrong on buildings sites, when a certifier 13 attends a site and things are not going to plan and the 14 builder or the developer is pushing the boundaries, again 15 we serve notices and then the whole project falls back on 16 the council. The council is then left with this turmoil 17 and mess through no fault of its own or of the certifier. 18 Again what is the accountability of the architect who 19 designed a poor design? Whether it got picked up or 20 missed, the architect designed it wrong and the builder 21 built it wrong. There are a lot of people in the cogs and 22 a lot of people need to start talking to each other. 23 24 A big thing for the ASC is consistency throughout 25 councils. We look at DA consent conditions. We summarise 26 our own and give them back to people. The fact is that a 27 lot of people do not read their DA consent. They do not 28 know the conditions. They come to us saying, "What do we 29 need to do?" Then the certifier has to give them the list 30 of items that need to be addressed. 31 32 Going back through history, DAs became that complicated 33 that we had planners leave councils and start their 34 own companies and were lodging DAs. You had planners 35 lodging DAs with councils because they were the only people 36 who could talk to them. You couldn't have mum and dad go 37 to the front counter. It just got too complicated. 38 39 The same thing is starting to happen on the private 40 certification front. We have certifiers who actually 41 prepare construction certificates to submit to other 42 certifiers. Again it is another role so that you have 43 Coles and Woolies with teams of people who just prepare 44 construction certificates. It is getting really, really 45 impossible and intense to certify and assess things. 46 47 The BPB is doing a very good job in ensuring that .4/12/2012 24 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 certifiers keep a very high level of professionalism and 2 making sure everything is ticked and crossed, but the 3 higher the level of compliance that is expected, the higher 4 the dollar cost across the board. We need access reports. 5 We need section J energy efficiency reports to do the same 6 job that was done 10 years ago. For us, there has been a 7 lot of movement in the last 10 years. Again, this is all 8 changing, so certifiers have to constantly reinvent 9 themselves and re-study. It is the same with councils. 10 All their staff have to be retrained to the new system. 11 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Peter. Yasmin. 13 14 MS KING: Yasmin King, I am the New South Wales Small 15 Business Commissioner. Obviously I endorse many of the 16 comments that have already been said. I suppose an 17 overarching comment I would make is that we have made 18 things so complex. If you can imagine how difficult it 19 is for, say, Coles to go and get things done with an army 20 of people, imagine what it is like when you are just an 21 individual and you are expected to face exactly the same 22 requirements and conditions, and there is just you. 23 24 In addition, you also have to rely on private sector 25 expertise, such as certifiers or whatever, and you also do 26 not know who is good and who is not. We see examples of 27 businesses who have used a certifier to help them in 28 getting approval for, say, a restaurant. They have done 29 all of the right things based on what the architect has 30 told them, what the certifier has told them, and then they 31 have had the council come in and say, "None of this 32 complies. You need to pull it all out and start it all 33 again." Who is at fault there? 34 35 The one who wears the cost is the small business 36 owner, who believed he or she was doing the right thing and 37 paid for the right advice. This happens because of all the 38 inconsistencies. We have so much complexity. You could 39 have a situation where the bushfire board will say, "No, 40 the land needs to be clear", the native vegetation rules 41 say, "No, the trees have to be kept", and the builder is 42 stuck in the middle saying, "Will someone make up their 43 mind which way it goes?" 44 45 Often what happens is that there is this paralysis in 46 decision making, because no-one wants to be responsible and 47 to say, "Well, this takes precedence over that." So the .4/12/2012 25 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 complexity of the system is just completely ridiculous. 2 3 I think that the other thing that needs to be taken 4 into consideration, apart from the fact that the system is 5 clearly broken, is that we have lost the concept of what we 6 are trying to achieve as outcomes. It has instead become 7 all about the process. It is because we have pushed down 8 so many obligations to local councils - effectively, you 9 have 152 little states who all have their own rules, 10 requirements and definitions - that we are in a situation 11 where people are allowed to make decisions based on revenue 12 streams that they have become used to. That becomes a 13 decision-making factor. It is not about, "What is the 14 right outcome for the community and what should we be 15 doing, for example, to make sure that we have a vibrant 16 community?" Instead it is, "Gee, we are getting how much 17 revenue for outdoor dining licences? We will keep them 18 because we need that income stream." It is not about, "Do 19 we want more outdoor dining?" 20 21 The other factor that we see, particularly in regional 22 areas, is that there is a lot of ability for people to have 23 what I could call the syndrome of little people in big 24 jobs. They are able to basically use the fact that they 25 have a position, and the fact that there is such a 26 complexity of rules, to make decisions which impact on 27 businesses which are not based on logic, and, sadly, we 28 have seen many examples of that. 29 30 That is something that has to be borne in mind, even 31 when you are looking at reviewing this system from a 32 cultural perspective. The cost of time for small 33 businesses is just enormous in this. We have seen examples 34 of somebody taking out a lease, looking for a change of 35 lease from a council, and it can take as long as nine 36 months for that change of use to go through. That business 37 is dead before it has even opened its doors because all of 38 its cash has been taken in paying that lease before it as 39 has even started one day of trading. Those are the sorts 40 of costs to the community. 41 42 The other thing that really is of concern is the whole 43 issue of pre-existing use. We have seen this problem occur 44 particularly in areas that are fast growing. You can have 45 an industrial area that has been set up, businesses are 46 long established, council has allowed residential 47 development to be right up adjacent to it. Despite the .4/12/2012 26 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 fact that the businesses were there for 20-odd years, all 2 of a sudden they are told, "You now have to change your 3 trading hours. You are not allowed to operate for as long 4 because there are noise issues." This is happening even 5 though the businesses were there long before the residents. 6 The residents, quite frankly, paid a price for their 7 properties on the basis that they were adjacent to an 8 industrial estate. But it is basically whoever is the 9 squeakiest wheel is the one who gets listened to. Again we 10 are not thinking about what is the outcome we are trying to 11 achieve, which is a growing and development community. 12 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Jasmine. John from the Office 14 of Fair Trading. 15 16 MR TANSEY: John Tansey from the Office of Fair Trading. 17 I will explain a little bit of what my particular role is. 18 I am responsible for heading up in Fair Trading the part of 19 Fair Trading that has a particular focus on home building, 20 so residential building, construction and licensing. In 21 that role, we are essentially a licensing authority and 22 then a regulator of the conduct of, for the sake of this 23 discussion, essentially builders and the related trades. 24 25 So in that, we are essentially responsible for the 26 regulation of their marketplace or commercial conduct in 27 the contract between consumers and builders. While we are 28 not specifically a regulator of the planning and building 29 system, as we have talked about so far today, the role we 30 have is hugely influenced by what happens and what is 31 required by our planning system and building controls. 32 33 In the simplest sense, when somebody comes to Fair 34 Trading and says, "Can you help me? Something is not fair, 35 can you help me?" - that can be a trader or a consumer - we 36 start looking at what the consumer has paid to have built 37 or what the builder has contracted to build, although it is 38 not a particular part of what our law regulates, it will be 39 directly affected by what the planning system and building 40 controls require of them. 41 42 Although we are there unashamedly as a capital "R" 43 regulator, we quite often end up alongside the trader 44 and/or the consumer, with them as almost a consumer of 45 building and planning system trying to work out who did 46 what to whom or who required what of whom, working 47 alongside with them trying to work out whether or not it .4/12/2012 27 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 has gone wrong and, if so, when it did and who should have 2 seen it coming. So we are very much a part of this mix. 3 4 I think in many ways, we have not experienced the 5 parallels perhaps with local councils. We are a reasonably 6 activist and on-the-ground regulator, so we tend to be a 7 counter in a shopfront in a local community where people 8 come in and say, "Can you help me, please. Something has 9 gone pear shaped?" 10 11 As I said, although we are a regulatory player, we are 12 almost a consumer-like a citizen within the planning 13 system, so I guess I am very interested in some of the 14 themes today about better coordination and/or integration 15 of some of those functions. 16 17 I guess I also am complicit in some of the 18 ring-fencing that our different roles create around those. 19 I may be guilty of some of the divisions or the creations 20 of duplication or overlap that sometimes frustrate people 21 here as well. So I have many hats. 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, John. David, do 24 you want to add anything? 25 26 MR TUXFORD: My name is David Tuxford. I am from 27 Liverpool Council and I am the director of city services at 28 Liverpool Council. Firstly, I should start by saying that 29 planning does not come under my control. You are probably 30 thinking what am I sitting here for, because I am an 31 accountant. At Liverpool we have about 350 staff. A 32 component of that staff is parking and compliance. Parking 33 and compliance probably gives me the most problems of any 34 other area in my portfolio, so that is what I am doing 35 here. 36 37 I would like to pick up on a few points that Roman 38 mentioned - I totally agree with what he said - and also 39 some of the other comments to do with duplication, 40 transparency, time. They are all things that we need to 41 look at. 42 43 Another thing that I want to touch on is we have been 44 talking about regulating fees and so on. I am not 45 certainly sticking up for councils, but councils have been 46 pushed into a corner to try and come up with ways of 47 raising extra revenues because of the constraints that have .4/12/2012 28 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 been placed on our revenue. 2 3 So, yes, we can start not charging any more for dining 4 on footpaths. So where do we get that money from? Do we 5 go to IPART and put in an application for a rate increase? 6 Where does that money come from? So one size does not fit 7 all and we have to make sure that is what we recognise 8 through this process. 9 10 We talk about the removal of trading hours and the 11 issues that places like Coles have. A lot of those issues 12 with Coles occur when Coles goes into established areas and 13 there are rezoning applications that need to occur and 14 there is community consultation that needs to occur and 15 there are residents, squeaky wheels, who get an action 16 group up and say, "We have been here for 30 years. We 17 don't want a supermarket beside us?" Can you blame them? 18 I would not like a supermarket beside me. 19 20 We have to make sure, whatever we do, whatever we 21 decide, that we take everyone's view into account and that 22 we make sure we don't take "local" out of local government, 23 because that is what makes it local government; it is the 24 fact that we are in touch with our community and we make 25 sure that we try and deliver the best service we possibly 26 can to our community. 27 28 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, David. Are there 29 any follow-up comments or questions around the table before 30 I move to the audience? 31 32 MR JOHNSON: I would not mind picking up a broad one 33 that probably relates a bit to Corin and the Department of 34 Premier and Cabinet. It seems to me that, with the number 35 of inquiries going on at the moment in the New South Wales 36 government about local government structure, about planning 37 et cetera, different people seem to be looking at different 38 clusters of councils. 39 40 It seems to me that, at the top of the New South Wales 41 government, there should be one approach to clusters of 42 councils rather than multiple. I say this because many 43 areas become, in a state like New South Wales, part 44 responsibility of the state government and part 45 responsibility of local government, and I keep take the 46 point about keeping the "local" in local. What that means 47 is a number of areas to do with economic development, to do .4/12/2012 29 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 with public transport, to do with planning, to do with 2 water management, to do with social issues end up with a 3 joint state and local group somehow. 4 5 In my experience, it seems that everyone has a 6 different version of how they pull together. It would seem 7 to me that a really important issue is to get one top-down 8 group of councils. Whether it be six or eight - or ROCs, 9 regional organisation of councils - somehow it seems to me 10 that it would help the system to get a single identified 11 approach to a regional group of councils without creating 12 another layer of governance. 13 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Corin, would you like to comment? 15 16 MS MOFFATT: I would entirely agree that that would be 17 something that would be very beneficial. I would suggest 18 the panel provides a really useful opportunity to try and 19 draw that map. Essentially the outcome of the panel would 20 be a new map for local government to consider. 21 22 I think the challenge we face, and I don't know the 23 answer to this, is sequencing all of this stuff. You have 24 the planning Green Paper, you have the metropolitan 25 strategy, and you have the Independent Review Panel 26 strategy and the local government review, and all of them 27 are different variations. Having said that, I think there 28 is a really important opportunity, in about the middle of 29 next year, to potentially bring that together in a way that 30 makes sense, but I would not suggest in any way that that 31 is easy to do. 32 33 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Corin. We are ahead of 34 schedule so we have plenty of time. We now invite questions 35 or comments from the floor. Please move to the microphone 36 in the centre there and identify yourself and the organisation 37 with which you are associated, if any. 38 39 MR BLOOMFIELD: Greg Bloomfield from Fair Go. In the 40 last quarter of a century of trying to build communication 41 bridges between the voting community and government, we 42 have detected a feeling in the community that it has been a 43 little bit abused by a coalition of property developers, 44 business people, councils and government. It is not 45 necessarily correct, but I think there is some degree of 46 justification for that feeling. 47 .4/12/2012 30 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 One of the recommendations we had hoped that IPART 2 would make is that council would recognise its role as 3 serving the community. In doing that, it would find out 4 what the community wants and then do it, and I was 5 encouraged by what the gentleman from Liverpool Council had 6 to say. I suggest that if they were to do that, we would 7 avoid a whole lot of red tape and cost which causes 8 problems for both the community and the council and also 9 the development industry. 10 11 It is not really possible for us to have a 12 standardised process and standardised DAs because people in 13 different areas have different wishes. It will be crystal 14 clear that the people who live in Paddington have totally 15 different aspirations from the people who live in Peak Hill 16 in the central west. That applies throughout all Sydney 17 suburbs. So standardisation does not work for the 18 community. 19 20 The development and business industry has one common 21 goal, and that is dollar profits, but in the community 22 people have quite different goals. They might revolve 23 around quality of life or education or the environment. 24 It is important to recognise that standardisation does not 25 serve the community and, in a democracy, councils and state 26 and federal governments are there to serve the community. 27 The community elects them, appoints them and it pays them. 28 29 The benefits that we talk about are not all easily 30 convertible into either dollars or jobs. There is a 31 tendency to talk about what is going on in those two terms. 32 I think, around the table, you would all realise that there 33 is a lot more to life than just dollars and jobs. 34 35 In terms of cutting red tape, the community would feel 36 that councils should determine what ought to be done and 37 then enforce that. So they should not waste time on 38 non-complying developments. Many people in the 39 community would say that if a development does not comply 40 with the regulations under which it has been built, it ought to 41 be taken down. So we should not waste time debating 42 whether we will allow an extra storey on a building or some 43 other non-complying elements. 44 45 It ought to be recognised that if we do manage to 46 eliminate the red tape, which probably the community would 47 like just as much as the developers and the business .4/12/2012 31 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 people, we will see very substantial unemployment in 2 councils and at the state government level, and probably in 3 the building industry, because it would make a big 4 difference to what we all do. Thank you. 5 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Greg. 7 8 MR WHEELDON: Thank you, Chairman. My name is 9 Bob Wheeldon. I am a councillor at Wentworth Shire 10 Council. Wentworth is in the furthest south-western corner 11 of New South Wales. It is about 26,000 square kilometres. 12 This is a map of the area that I will pass up later on. 13 We have slightly different needs than Sydney people, and 14 the New South Wales government really is not within reach 15 in any practical sense of our citizens. 16 17 One example in the planning sphere is that until last 18 year, there have been no rezonings in our shire for eight 19 years, not one. That was partly to do with the standard 20 instrument coming into effect. 21 22 I do understand the planning Green Paper is covering 23 most of those areas and IPART's influence is limited, but 24 I believe one very substantial input IPART could make is to 25 look at the structure of the New South Wales planning 26 department as it relates to far distant regional areas. 27 28 In this regard, I would give the comparison with 29 Victoria. In our area of Wentworth. We are one minute 30 away from Mildura. It has a population of 60,000 and a 31 reasonably prosperous area. There is a bridge to cross, 32 and, in one minute, you are there. On the other hand, we 33 are approximately 900 kilometres from Dubbo, where the 34 regional planning office for our area is. That is where 35 our council has to go for any change at all to its planning 36 scheme. We are also approximately 1,100 kilometres from 37 Sydney. We have no air service, train service or bus 38 service to Dubbo. We have a once a day Rex service to 39 Sydney. So to get any change through our planning system, 40 we effectively have to go to Dubbo and then go to Sydney. 41 42 On the other hand, if you are in Mildura and you want 43 to effect a change in the planning system, you have to deal 44 with Melbourne only. So what that effectively means, as 45 Mr Johnson was saying before, is Victoria is cutting our 46 lunch. If you are someone who likes living in that 47 area - I realise most Sydney people might not, but it has .4/12/2012 32 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 many advantages down there - you have a choice between 2 doing business in New South Wales and Victoria. 3 4 Up to about 20 years ago, New South Wales was probably 5 on a par with Victoria in complexity and ease of business. 6 With the numerous regulations that have come in, it is now 7 not competitive. New South Wales is not competitive. So 8 what do people do if they want to set up a business or do 9 something? They go to Victoria. It is not hard for them 10 if the choice is going to Dubbo or Sydney. I mean, these 11 are the other instrumentalities for other areas. But there 12 is no place for these regional offices for the Department 13 of Planning, and New South Wales planning needs to decide 14 whether it wants to give these planning powers to the local 15 areas and let them take responsibility or do a proper job 16 of overseeing planning. Thank you. 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Bob. Julie. 19 20 MS ABRAMSON: My name is Julie Abramson. I am from the 21 national office of the Civil Contractors Federation and we 22 have been looking at local government issues nationally. 23 Whilst my comments are national, I am sure the people in 24 the panel will see some relevance. As I said, my comments 25 are national in nature because we have been looking at 26 local government throughout Australia especially in the 27 context of the Productivity Commission review, but I am 28 sure a lot of these comments are also New South Wales 29 specific. 30 31 I really want to pick up three quick comments. With 32 lack of standardisation of contracts, Civil Construction 33 is, if you like, the enabler between the people that come 34 on the site and prepare it for work. Our members have told 35 us, certainly in Victoria, that they have 60 general 36 conditions of contract, so there is not one standard form 37 contract. That adds to the cost of all developments, 38 because people then have to go through this particular 39 contract. 40 41 There are also issues about technical specifications. 42 I think at last count, there were 100 different kerb 43 profiles throughout Australia. So a civil contractor can 44 do a kerb profile in one jurisdiction or one shire and then 45 he would have to do a different thing in a different shire. 46 47 There are issues with deskilling, so that actually .4/12/2012 33 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 adds to project costs. A contractor who is experienced 2 might know a particular way of doing a project, which is 3 quite safe and cost effective, but because there is no 4 civil engineer at the local council, the tendency is 5 actually to build to the highest standard possible. We 6 like to say it means that you could land a 747 on some of 7 our country roads. 8 9 The other issue I would also like to raise, and I do 10 not know whether it is relevant in New South Wales, is 11 procurement practices. Ernst & Young actually did a report 12 in Victoria for the previous Labor government. They found 13 that cost savings on standard procurement was between $180 14 million and $350 million. So it is really those three 15 areas: lack of standardisation, which is both contracts 16 and technical specifications; deskilling; and procurement 17 practices. 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Julie. 20 21 MR GILLIGAN: My name is Adam Gilligan, I am a 22 compliance manager at the City of Newcastle. I want to pick 23 up on some comments from Yasmin, the Small Business 24 Commissioner, about outdoor dining. I think it is interesting 25 example of the role of local government in that space. You are 26 right in that councils can get hooked on an existing revenue 27 stream. I think in the case of something like outdoor 28 dining, councils legitimately ought to seek to share in the 29 profits that someone might make from running a business. 30 In the same way that a landlord takes in rent from a 31 business operating on their land, councils essentially go 32 through a rental process with outdoor dining. 33 34 I also want to comment on the difficulties in 35 operating something like outdoor dining for local 36 government because of the regulatory regime we are faced 37 with. We actually encourage outdoor dining. We think it 38 creates a cosmopolitan atmosphere. It encourages people to 39 come into in our city and it does encourage business. It 40 is valuable not only for some business that have small 41 floor space internally, but it also shows that they are 42 open. So we recognise the value of it. 43 44 We are going through the process of looking to expand 45 that. Not only will it be about outdoor dining but about 46 other forms of trade. We have had businesses, such as a 47 hardware store or a florist say, "Hang on. Why can a cafe .4/12/2012 34 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 sell their product outside? Why can't we do that?" 2 3 When we look at doing that, we are faced with a 4 regulatory regime where we have outdoor dining with very 5 specific provisions under the Roads Act. We have some 6 other provisions under the Roads Act that relate to 7 structures and works that are quite separate. Then we have 8 provisions under the Local Government Act that talk about 9 using an article or a vehicle for selling or exposing an 10 article in or on an open road. We then all take up the 11 planning regime and can these things be developed. In some 12 cases they can, but other approvals may overtake them. 13 14 We are looking at three or four different statutory 15 provisions that we are trying to implement. We would like 16 something that is a one-stop shop for our business to be 17 able to say, "Let's put all those activities under one 18 umbrella and deal with them consistently." Unfortunately, 19 the regulatory regime we operate within means we will have 20 to deal with those things in different ways, and that 21 creates additional complexity for the small business. This 22 occurs not only within our area, but across other areas, 23 because those pieces of legislation are not entirely clear 24 on how they should be interpreted and applied. So you will 25 get a difference between how we apply them in Newcastle 26 and how they are applied in Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens 27 and elsewhere. 28 29 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Adam. 30 31 MR HIRD: Lew Hird, from the Blue Mountains Lithgow and 32 Oberon Tourism Management Committee. I am intrigued that 33 tourism has not come up thus far in the discussions around 34 the table. We have heard of business and supermarkets and 35 that sort of thing, but not tourism. 36 37 Tourism development is a particular problem 38 particularly in areas like the Blue Mountains. We have a 39 situation in the Blue Mountains where there are very 40 limited opportunities for tourist development. Recently 41 councillors commissioned a report on the basis of the 42 practice note put out by the Department of Planning for 43 tourism local environmental planners to try and identify 44 areas of tourism development. 45 46 That report has not been released by council. It has 47 been over 12 months. The LEP revision will probably take .4/12/2012 35 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 about three years before we can get to a point where we can 2 actually identify some of those areas where tourism can, in 3 fact, take place in the Blue Mountains and we need to 4 identify the areas where we need to address tourism issues. 5 6 Some of the problems, in the interim then, are that, 7 indeed, if there will be tourist developments, we may well 8 require a rezoning. That has all the inherent problems of 9 one rezoning close to residential areas and the conflicts 10 which occur there. The basic problem we have with tourist 11 investment and local councils is the fact that residents 12 elect councils and councils are there effectively for 13 residents. They are not there for a tourist investment. 14 They are not there necessarily for business development, 15 although I think, in many cases, business development gets 16 a better go than tourist development because tourist 17 development is seen to be external to the actual area or 18 catering for external needs per se. However, it does in 19 fact provide jobs for the local area. It does provide 20 facilities for the local area as well. So there is an 21 inherent conflict there, I think in the whole planning 22 process. 23 24 What we do find in terms of assessment of development 25 applications for tourism is that council regulators and 26 councillors seem to be risk averse. They answer to the 27 people; therefore, it is very difficult to get these sorts 28 of things up. We find constantly that obstacles are placed 29 in the way. The DCPs, in fact, tend to be inconsistent as 30 to what constitutes tourist activity. We have a situation 31 where there was a spa, for example, located in one of the 32 main tourist stretches going down towards Echo Point. That 33 spa was not designated tourist activity in terms of 34 council's DCP, so we are having to work through those sorts 35 of processes. It is very costly for tourist activity and 36 the like to do so. 37 38 We find inconsistency in what constitutes a tourist 39 activity. We find inconsistency in DCPs as to the 40 rationale and restrictions imposed on tourist activities. 41 We also find in the tourism area that pre-DA advice tends 42 to be inconsistent with what is required in the actual DA. 43 If you have a pre-DA meeting, you expect to get an idea of 44 what is required in the DA. You pay for it and it is not 45 forthcoming. Then you are asked for something else and 46 then you are asked for something else again. That costs 47 money. There are delays and as we know in business, delays .4/12/2012 36 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 are costly. 2 3 Those are the sorts of issues I think that we need to 4 address as far as tourism is concerned. Whether in fact 5 with respect to designation of tourist zones, do we require 6 state significant development rather than allowing councils 7 to actually determine those? I think that is a question 8 that we need to answer in the future. Thank you. 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Lew. 11 12 MS HARVEY: Robyn Harvey, from Crescent Head, and I am 13 an individual just trying to build a beach house. I agree 14 with Michael's and Chris's comments and, Yasmin, you 15 wrapped it all up in one. Maybe the way forward is for the 16 DAs to need a higher review body at state level and maybe 17 the government should appoint an individual to make a 18 determination on a contentious issues between the applicant 19 and council without having to go to the Land and 20 Environment Court at a huge cost to the individual and, of 21 course, a huge cost to the ratepayers. In my case, over 22 the past three years, I have continued my fight to build a 23 beach house and I would have spent in excess of $100,000 to 24 continue. So imagine what the ratepayers have paid in my 25 shire. 26 27 With regard to communication with the applicants in a 28 planning department they really have a lot to answer to. 29 They really should talk more to everybody, no matter what 30 you are doing. At the moment, I believe a private 31 certifier is your only hope to build your dream home. 32 Thank you. 33 34 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Robyn. 35 36 MS WHITEFORD: My name is Diane Whiteford. I am 37 speaking as an individual. I have listened to people here 38 today. There has been quite an emphasis on what the 39 community wants, but I think that sometimes we must also 40 take into account what the community needs. We need to 41 consider the socio-economic aspects of development. I am 42 going to talk about two side-by-side councils that are 43 completely contrasting in what they do to help development 44 get up in their areas. I do not want to name them, because I 45 do not want to bag one of the councils in particular in a public 46 forum like this, but I am willing to speak to you 47 afterwards. .4/12/2012 37 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 The more pro-development council has an unemployment 3 rate of 5 per cent. The anti-development council - and 4 that is my interpretation; other people might disagree - 5 has an unemployment rate of 8 per cent. They have horrific 6 crime in the area. It is a really low socio-economic area. 7 There are pockets of incumbents who are well off, usually 8 retirees. These areas have a declining ageing population. 9 They worry about getting doctors into their communities. 10 Well, what doctor wants to go to such a small area that is 11 declining in population? That is one socio-economic 12 aspect. 13 14 I want to give one case study example. The council 15 that is not pro-development - or in my judgment is not 16 pro-development - had an application before it from a local 17 engineering firm that I think it has been there probably 18 for 60 years. They had the opportunity to expand. They 19 wanted more land. They could not get council approval to 20 expand. The go-ahead council next door said to them, "Hey, 21 we have land for you and we will give you a subsidy." 22 I can't vouch for this, but I heard they got a $30,000 23 subsidy to move or to build their new engineering plant in 24 that area. This is the council with 5 per cent 25 unemployment. They still continued part of their 26 engineering business in the original area, the less 27 go-ahead council. 28 29 I noticed in the local paper recently that they had 30 done some more construction and increased their capacity on 31 their current land and, guess what, it was done by a 32 complying developer. Without that complying development 33 system, they would not have been able to do anything in 34 this shire. So that is all I have to say. Please take 35 account of socio-economic aspects. 36 37 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Diane. Good to see you again. 38 39 MS WHITEFORD: Thank you, too. 40 41 MR McKENZIE: Good morning. My name is Ray McKenzie. 42 I am from the Mobile Carriers Forum. The Mobile Carriers 43 Forum is an industry body that represents the carriers 44 employing mobile networks in Australia at the present time, 45 which is Telstra, Vodaphone, Hutchison and Optus. I have 46 made submissions to this inquiry and also to the Green 47 Paper and, a little before that, to the Productivity .4/12/2012 38 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Commission's inquiry, all looking at the performance of 2 local government and the impact on business. 3 4 We have heard quite a bit about the different views of 5 communities and their different climates across different 6 local government areas, but I think something that is 7 consistent across all those communities is the demand for 8 modern advanced mobile telecommunications. To give you an 9 idea, we have something like 29 million mobile service 10 subscriptions in this country and that is about 1.3 for 11 every person. That is growing. There is an expectation 12 that the demand for advanced mobile services, data services 13 will be twelve-fold over the next several years. So it is 14 very much a growing business. 15 16 In 2010 a report commissioned by us saw that the 17 national contribution to the economy was in the order of 18 $17.4 billion. So I think we can accept that there is a 19 pretty uniform demand for the sorts of services that are 20 envisioned by our members. 21 22 Our members are involved in a different form of 23 building and construction. They are really building and 24 constructing an infrastructure and, we would say, an 25 essential infrastructure. To some extent that is 26 recognised by federal government legislation that provides 27 exemptions to planning requirements for certain sorts of 28 developments. 29 30 But it is still true that, of about 600 sites that are 31 in acquisition at any time in New South Wales, about 200 of 32 these are in some form of development application process 33 at any one time. So any inconsistencies, inefficiencies, 34 cost delays in the DA process with local government are 35 scaled up considerably by the fact that we have so many of 36 these things going on at one time. That has a significant 37 impact on the costs of doing business and on the financial 38 viability of those proposals. 39 40 To ensure a smoother and more efficient development of 41 infrastructure, we are a strong advocate of the leading 42 practice model for development assessment developed by 43 the Development Assessment Forum under the auspices of the 44 Council of Australian Governments, in essence, looking at 45 code accessible type of developments. 46 47 In New South Wales, this has been kicked along by the .4/12/2012 39 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 state and environmental planning policy infrastructure, ISEPP 2 rules, that can apply to telecommunications developments now 3 in certain planning zones. But it is still the case that 4 something like 30 per cent of all our developments have to 5 go through DAs. 6 7 So in terms of our concerns, we have mentioned that 8 there are the issues of costs and delays and 9 inconsistencies that make doing this task highly 10 inefficient. Just to give you one example - this is one of 11 many that I could provide - there was a recent, or 12 relatively recent, development application submitted to a 13 council in December. Bear in mind that we are not building 14 large supermarkets or large residential multi-level 15 developments. These are relatively small infrastructure 16 developments. 17 18 In this case the DA was submitted to the council 19 in December last year. The council undertook its own 20 community consultation under its processes which shook 21 loose 10 submissions - not a large number of submissions - 22 but because that process ran through January. It was 23 decided that another process should happen because of the 24 holiday period, and that is fair enough. So the member 25 involved, under separate consultation, had 200 letters 26 mailed out, which shook loose another three submissions. 27 By any measure there was not an expression of the large 28 level of concern about the development. 29 30 The council department then looked at all that and it 31 went through planning and ticked it off. It was scheduled 32 for a decision in April, at the April council meeting, 33 which is still five months further on. Councillors were 34 briefed and there were no expressions of concern. However, 35 at the April meeting, the permit was confused by the 36 councillors - so this is going against the advice of their 37 planners - and rather than moving a motion for refusal, it 38 was deferred. So another month was wasted before the 39 application was finally refused. 40 41 The member, quite rightly, took objection to the 42 nature of the refusal and, unfortunately, as happens in 43 some cases, commenced proceedings in the New South Wales 44 Land and Environment Court. In September, the council took 45 legal advice and understood that its position was not very 46 good and a hearing was scheduled. At the directions 47 hearing, which lasted the for 40 minutes - it took .4/12/2012 40 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 40 minutes - there was one submission by phone. The member 2 was successful in his application. 3 4 That occurred in October. It has taken something like 5 11 months to get to a point that should have been reached 6 very rapidly at a significant cost of $80,000 to the 7 member, and probably something quite similar to the 8 council, not accounting for any of the resources that were 9 tied up in the process. 10 11 Bear in mind this is an example that can be repeated 12 many tens of times, maybe a hundred times, across many 13 occasions. So we are talking about millions of dollars 14 being tied up in this process, and it is really not a 15 useful thing to do. 16 17 In terms of reforms that we would suggest are useful 18 for IPART to consider, we have talked about the code, the 19 SEPP model, and extending that into other planning zones. 20 We commend the Green Paper for its proposal around 21 state-based planning policies, which is assessed by 22 independent expert panels, and the provision of code 23 compliance in accepted developments. 24 25 We commend IPART for taking on this issue, and we are 26 hopeful that we will see an outcome that will make this a 27 much more efficient enterprise in the future. 28 29 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ray. 30 31 MS WEATHERLY: Sue Weatherly, Parramatta City Council. 32 If I take the first part of the question posed, which is, 33 "What compliance and enforcement practices are imposing 34 unnecessary costs and burdens", and if I use the outdoor 35 dining example which was given, in some cases that requires 36 technically three approvals under three different Acts for 37 the same activity. 38 39 The most important recommendation I think I would make 40 is that there needs to be a review of the legislation that 41 is enforced by local government to ensure that a single 42 approval deals with all the elements. I agree a small 43 business should be able to get approval from council that 44 deals with all to do with its food shop, all its health 45 requirements, all its outdoor dining requirements, and to 46 be lawfully done. At the moment, that is simply not 47 possible. .4/12/2012 41 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 We even had a court case challenging the council in 3 relation to some outdoor dining issues, which has meant we 4 have had to have some level of regime to ensure that we 5 have public safety issues covered and ending up issuing 6 three approvals. That is not where we should have ended 7 up, but that is what has happened. That would be my number 8 one recommendation because, in fact, not only is it an 9 impost on local business, because it is an impost on local 10 business, it is an impost on council as well. We are 11 processing three lots of applications with three lots of 12 heads of consideration and no wonder people cannot 13 understand it. 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sue. 16 17 MS ELENIUS: My name is Elizabeth Elenius, and I am with 18 the Better Planning Network. I should preface my remarks 19 by saying that I agree with the gentleman from Liverpool 20 that "local" must be kept in this new system. I probably 21 represent what many of you around the table would consider 22 one of the biggest unnecessary costs and burdens - I am a 23 member of the community. When things go awry, the 24 community can arise and become quite an expensive burden 25 on development. 26 27 I live in a high-rise master plan development. 28 Personally, I have been involved with consultation at a 29 very early level with a number of developers, and a number 30 of people in our group have been similarly involved. Our 31 experience has been that, where a developer decides to push 32 the boundaries of the rules set in a master plan - we have 33 invested sometimes millions of dollars in our property 34 on the basis of an approved master plan, we expect 35 certainty - and where a developer then decides to go higher 36 or exceed the building footprint or floor space ratio or 37 whatever, we get a little unsettled. 38 39 I will outline one example of this. A DA was put in 40 for a multistorey building in our master plan development 41 that did contravene the master plan. A number of us put in 42 submissions. The developer obviously had gone to a lot of 43 expense to develop a DA that did not conform. The city 44 council looked at that development application, looked at 45 our very reasoned arguments against it - ie, that it didn't 46 conform with the master plan - and the council indicated to 47 the developer that it was unlikely to approve it. .4/12/2012 42 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 We were lucky, in this instance, because that very 3 large developer gave me a phone call and said, "We've got 4 to meet." We met and they sat down over a piece of 5 butcher's paper in a coffee shop and said, "What do you 6 want." We said, "This is what we want. It's quite 7 reasonable." The developer went tick, tick, tick, tick, 8 and they completely redesigned the building. They put the 9 development application in. We actually went to council in 10 support of that development application and it all went 11 through. 12 13 I think the lesson from this is that the unnecessary 14 costs and burdens, particularly relating to community 15 involvement and concern about development, will continue to 16 arise if the new Planning Act has the continuing provisions 17 for non-conforming developments and developments of state 18 significance that fall outside what we would consider to be 19 the rules of the game, the LEPs, the DCPs, which, of 20 course, have now been relegated to not a requirement but a 21 recommendation. 22 23 We are not against development, but I would urge, 24 whatever happens to the red tape review that you are doing 25 or the reviews of the Planning Act, that developers be 26 either required to come to us first, or do it voluntarily. 27 Come to us first. Come to the communities that you are 28 going to move into with your developments and talk to us 29 early at the pre-concept stage. 30 31 We did that again with another architect recently. 32 They came to us pre-concept and then went to the 33 architectural competition with some of our ideas 34 incorporated in the brief. We are not unreasonable, but 35 there is not one ordinary member of the community 36 represented around this table -- 37 38 THE CHAIRMAN: That's why you are all getting a chance to 39 speak now. 40 41 MS ELENIUS: I know, but it is just that we need to 42 confer, and if you listen to us, it will eliminate some of 43 the costs and burdens. 44 45 THE CHAIRMAN: We are very much listening. Thank you 46 very much, Elizabeth. We are running right up against the 47 time now. If people can be brief, that would be helpful. .4/12/2012 43 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 MS BONDAREW: Veronica Bondarew, from the Association 3 of Consulting Surveyors. We commend IPART on this 4 initiative. We think it is great to have a roundtable to hear 5 everyone's point of view. I do not want to take up time 6 repeating what the roundtable has covered especially in 7 terms of complexity with reference to development 8 applications and certification. We generally agree with 9 most of what has been put forward. 10 11 A real concern for my members in land surveying is the 12 misconceptions about disqualification in terms of 13 engineering design. In New South Wales, surveyors are 14 qualified to undertake subdivisions and engineering design, 15 but a large number of council engineers refuse to recognise 16 this qualification and demand additional supervision by a 17 civil engineer. Obviously this incurs additional time and 18 cost. We have attempted to have inappropriate council 19 codes changed, but it has been one council at a time. It 20 is very time consuming, and, of course, when the chief 21 engineer changes, we need to go through the process all 22 over again. 23 24 Actually such actions are an unfair restriction of 25 trade and, for us, standardised recognitions of 26 qualifications of this profession of land surveyors across 27 the state would certainly improve the system, thank you. 28 29 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Veronica. 30 31 MR TEGART: Peter Tegart, general manager Bega Valley 32 Council, and I speak as the general manager. With regard 33 to one of the points that was mentioned earlier, it is 34 important to synchronise the range of views being 35 undertaken at this point in time because we will all find a 36 common part to play. That is in the context of recognising 37 that it is the state government that develops and imposes 38 the regulations and it is local government which generally 39 applies those regulations, notwithstanding that there are 40 some local interpretation issues. 41 42 I wanted to pick up a number of issues. I hit my guys 43 over the head quite often because my sense is that the 44 universities tend to train our planning and building staff 45 now to be almost of a bunker mentality: "Follow this line, 46 give a thrust towards environmental code", and so forth. 47 It is very hard to regulate the environment; yet the .4/12/2012 44 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 greatest thrust in a lot of our development of building and 2 other forms of regulatory assessment is actually around 3 environment. It is entirely appropriate, as I say to my 4 guys, that the role of the regulatory environment is to 5 protect public health, environmental health and impact on 6 infrastructure. At the end of the day they focus on the 7 bricks rather than, as I seek to do, focusing on the street 8 and focusing on the city. They will be more concerned 9 about "Have I crossed this T, or dotted this I to make sure 10 I have complied with the regulations, as I have been 11 trained, for fear of reprimand." Because they have been 12 reprimanded by developers and councillors in the past, 13 I think, as a sector, we have tended to develop a bit of a 14 bunker mentality. 15 16 The part we should not forget is that this review 17 tends to be very, in my sense, metro-centric and focused on 18 economics? Picking up on David's point earlier, for 19 local councils it is the local aspect. What price should 20 we place on the adviser role, the assisting role for the 21 mums and dad? We are not all talking about developers 22 here. The bulk of all development activity within local 23 councils is the dream homes, or the investment homes, 24 whatever the case may be. 25 26 The irony is when we have a Woolworths or a Coles turn 27 up, we will bend over backwards and we will get those 28 development applications through. Why? Because our 29 charter is about economic development, all about economic 30 development, building employment, and those are key 31 factors. Often we are able to show that we have the 32 passion and ability to bend over backwards and make those 33 development get through, against the laws and rules of the 34 day, unlike the mums and dads, who come in asking, "How 35 can you help me with that or that?" 36 37 We have to work at identifying what price should the 38 broader community pay towards that regulatory regime and 39 then apply appropriate fees for recovery. In my 40 organisation, I insist that all our rates go only towards 41 infrastructure. All of our other services, the 42 non-infrastructure services, should be recovered through 43 fees and grants. So I actually push my organisation to get 44 full cost recovery and almost do a lawyer's 15-minutes 45 charging regime where we can recover the costs of a 46 particular application and so forth going through the 47 organisation. .4/12/2012 45 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 So the role of local government as an adviser and 3 consultor as against an assessor and a regulator should not 4 be underestimated. There should be some form of different 5 equation that we can apply to the pricing. 6 7 All councils are required to produce what is called a 8 community strategic plan. We all have ambitions about the 9 way our place will look in terms of economic activity and 10 character. It is actually those regulatory regimes that 11 set the platform to define how the local government area 12 will look, what sort of character will develop in its 13 infrastructure and how it should be organised in terms of 14 development or commercial activity taking place. 15 16 Those plans are set by local councils. It is then 17 tried to be administered through a complicated and complex 18 state regulatory regime and they are in conflict. We need 19 to keep in mind how we can get the aspirations of the local 20 communities energised having regard to that complicated, 21 and frankly anarchic, regulatory regime. 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you wrap up now? 24 25 MR TEGART: I am now. The state government used to do 26 regulatory impact statements when they imposed the laws, 27 which are generally around the environment and stuff. That 28 tended to be watered, that should be built into part of 29 this review process through IPART. 30 31 THE CHAIRMAN: We have time for two more, with one 32 minute each. 33 34 MS GRIFFIN: I am Cathy Griffin. I am a councillor on 35 Manly Council. I would agree with a lot of what has been 36 said today. One issue I would like to canvass that was 37 mentioned in one of your slides is the control of opening 38 hours for businesses. 39 40 This is becoming an emerging problem in Manly with the 41 Office of Gaming Liquor and Racing receiving applications 42 for what are now called small bars. They are issuing 43 liquor licences to operate premises for 24 hours, because 44 the applicant has to apply for a general liquor licence, 45 which is effectively a hotel licence. These small bars are 46 now extending into the residential areas in what were 47 previously small cafes, which were only open during the .4/12/2012 46 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 day. 2 3 Our council now, through its development control 4 change of use, controls the operating hours and will 5 suggest that that cafe, or that now bar, closes at 10pm. 6 Council has to enforce the compliance. However, what is 7 happening is that there is not a lot of discussion between 8 the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing and council in this 9 approval process. The Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing 10 sometimes requests and requires a community impact 11 statement, a category B or a category A. I have looked at 12 some of these community impact statements. They are tick 13 and flick. They are completely irrelevant and really do 14 not address what the community issues would be about. 15 16 I would like to see with the Office of Liquor, Gaming 17 and Racing that legislative requirement actions be 18 considered amongst this process here. Thank you. 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Cathy. The last 21 comment. 22 23 MS MULLINS: Thank you. My name is Kim Mullins. I am a 24 member of the leadership group of Better Planning Network. 25 I am also a convener of Community Voice Hornsby Shire, 26 which is made up of several community groups within the 27 shire. One great concern we have is that any new system 28 should look at the long-term interests of community and the 29 environment, that any removal of regulations or easing of 30 the system should have its sights set on the long-term 31 outcomes and benefits as opposed to just shifting the 32 goalposts. 33 34 We realise that everyone needs some consistency. We 35 know that the community is often seen as a bunch of NIMBYs, 36 but we require much more communication and information. 37 It would be most helpful, as has already been cited, if this 38 were to take place in the beginning. But I would like to 39 make the point that just deciding on something at a 40 strategic planning level is not clear enough for the 41 community, that every development has its own set of issues 42 and that the community should be involved with those 43 specifics, and do it in a beneficial way for the good of 44 all. 45 46 A gentleman from Liverpool Council stated that one 47 size does not fit all. I come from a shire that has its .4/12/2012 47 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 waterway areas. It is 67 per cent bushland. It has rural, 2 it has low urban areas and high density areas. Each has a 3 different set of constraints. It is very difficult for the 4 public to understand how one set of rules could fit all, 5 and I do not see how that could operate in practice either. 6 So there need to be some protections built in. To have 7 moveable goalposts would not be helpful for the 8 construction industry, for council, for individuals or 9 whatever, so thank you. 10 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Kim. Thank you all 12 very much for what was a very interesting and stimulating 13 morning session. We have finished a little over time, so 14 I suggest that we resume for the second session, 15 minutes 15 from now, thank you. 16 17 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 18 19 Session 2: Opening Comments 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much. Let us get 22 started. This is session 2, which deals with what specific 23 representations should IPART make to reduce unnecessary 24 regulatory burdens in the areas of environment, public 25 health and safety, parking and road transport, companion 26 animal management, and any other areas that might be 27 suggested? 28 29 First we will have an introduction from Alexandra Lobb 30 from the secretariat. 31 32 Session 2: What specific recommendations should IPART make 33 to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens in the areas of: 34 Environment 35 Public health and safety 36 Parking and road transport 37 Companion animal management, and 38 Other areas. 39 40 MS LOBB: Thank you, Peter. Good morning. Many 41 stakeholder submissions and also the Productivity 42 Commission's report on local government have identified the 43 NSW Food Authority as having leading practice relationships 44 with councils and businesses. 45 46 There are key aspects of the food regulation 47 partnership which highlight the following as leading .4/12/2012 48 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 practice: 2 Clear demarcation of roles between state and local 3 government; 4 Strategic consultation between the Food Authority and 5 councils, for example, the Food Regulation Forum; 6 A dedicated central and funded local government unit 7 within the Food Authority, which is there to provide 8 guidance, collate information and assess councils' 9 regulatory performance; 10 Minimum annual inspection requirements for councils; 11 Standardised compliance tools being developed; for 12 example, forms and templates; and 13 Provision for councils to recover costs via fees and 14 charges under the Food Act. 15 16 The effectiveness of these practices has led to 17 improved compliance rates and enforcement activity in food 18 safety in New South Wales and benefits have been shown to 19 outweigh the costs of such a model. However, according to 20 stakeholders, some concerns still remain. There is 21 duplication in relation to notification registers. There 22 is inconsistency in inspection. Mobile food business 23 registrations is an issue that has been raised. There are 24 high enforcement costs for councils, as suggested by some 25 councils' submissions, and there is also the provision for 26 an inconsistent application of fees by councils under the 27 Food Authority's fee cap. 28 29 In the area of environment, stakeholders' submissions 30 have raised concerns over the need for clearer delineation 31 between roles and responsibilities of the Environment 32 Protection Authority and others with councils, for example, 33 in the areas of asbestos, waste and noise. There is an 34 inconsistent inspections framework that has been raised by 35 stakeholders, and not so much the inability per se, but a 36 limited ability for councils to be able to recover costs 37 through fees and charges. There are provisions under the 38 Protection of the Environment Operations Act and others for 39 cost recovery, but there is the difficulty for councils to 40 actually get payment from operations for premises that they 41 are required to inspect and enforce. There also appears to 42 be a need for further state direction in the area of 43 coastal management and the stakeholders have raised issues 44 of unclear policy guidance in this area. 45 46 In the area of public health and safety, which was not 47 widely addressed in our submissions, there was some .4/12/2012 49 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 stakeholder concern to do with lack of consultation between 2 the Ministry of Health and councils particularly with 3 respect to the new Public Health Act. There was concern 4 relating to a lack of support provided to councils by the 5 Ministry of Health with the transfer of new functions, and 6 the need for central registers to assist councils in their 7 inspections and regulatory activities in the following 8 areas: skin penetration premises; cooling and warming 9 towers; public swimming pools. 10 11 With respect to parking and road transport, 12 submissions have raised issues and concerns in relation to 13 parking cash in lieu contribution policies, where it has 14 been suggested that there is not enough transparency in fee 15 setting and the requirement and the number of spaces and 16 what the funds are used for and also the excessiveness of 17 fees having an adverse effect for small businesses. 18 19 In relation to the performance based standards 20 mapping, which relates to heavy vehicles, councils are 21 under-resourced and under-skilled in being able to 22 successfully implement this mapping process in relation to 23 heavy vehicle assessment. Another issue raised by 24 submissions is the apparent mismatch between councils' 25 assessment for local roads and what the performance based 26 standards maps consider to be acceptable. 27 28 There are also other local roads issues that have been 29 raised to do with restrictions placed by councils in 30 relation to loading times and access issues, for example. 31 32 Stakeholder submissions raised the following areas of 33 concern for companion animal management: 34 Difficulties with the two-step micro-chip/registration 35 process; 36 Difficulty maintaining the correct data in the 37 register; 38 Information needed for enforcement action not being 39 adequately collected in the registration process, which 40 leads to a large proportion of fines being unpaid; and 41 High cost of enforcement to councils. 42 43 We should note here that there is currently a New South 44 Wales Companion Animals Taskforce that is making some 45 considerations and is due to report to the minister soon. 46 47 I will now run through some reforms that have been .4/12/2012 50 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 suggested by stakeholders in their submissions to our 2 issues paper. Firstly, with respect to food, many of the 3 potential reforms and improvements are currently under 4 review by the Food Authority. There has been a suggestion 5 by stakeholders to apply the leading practice aspects of 6 the food model to other areas; for example, public health, 7 environment and possibly into further areas. There are 8 aspects of leading practice I outlined earlier in the 9 presentation that specifically include dedicated local 10 government units and some other aspects of standardisation, 11 for example. 12 13 Submissions have highlighted the need for clearer 14 demarcation of roles and responsibilities in the area of 15 environment. An example of this can be with noise 16 complaints, where communities and/or businesses are not 17 sure who to make a complaint to - is it the council who is 18 responsible? Is it the Environment Protection Authority or 19 is it the police? There is a need for state policies or 20 guidelines to be provided to councils and the communities 21 to clarify these roles, and we are interested in knowing 22 which specific areas are a concern and where we need to 23 focus our priority. 24 25 In relation to public health, stakeholders have 26 suggested centralised registers for registrations, 27 notifications and approvals. An example of where a similar 28 register works is in companion animal management, which 29 also hypothecates funding for compliance and enforcement. 30 31 There are also issues raised with respect to informing 32 the inspections process and centrally collecting data from 33 council reports for being able to assess regulatory 34 performance. 35 36 In the area of parking and road transport, potential 37 reforms suggested by submissions include a flying squad of 38 expert engineers to assist councils in the performance 39 based standard maps and ensuring they are up to date. 40 41 There is a need for review of local government access 42 decisions of trucks on local roads. There is a need for 43 councils to publish parking contribution policies to detail 44 when they are required, how they are calculated, and how 45 the money is required to be spent, and a review of parking 46 fines at a local level instead of in the local courts. 47 .4/12/2012 51 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Turning to potential reforms in the area of companion 2 animal management, there are reforms being considered by 3 the taskforce. These include: 4 One-step micro-chipping/registration model; 5 Rebates for desexing and benchmarking fees to CPI; 6 Self-service updates on registers, to include access 7 to veterinarians; and 8 Greater use of education campaigns. 9 10 Some other reform ideas raised by stakeholders 11 include: 12 Refining the registration form to include the owner 13 date of birth so that the State Debt Recovery Office can 14 enforce unpaid fines; 15 The broader use of Hurstville Council's best practice 16 keeping of animals in their Local Orders Policy; and 17 Greater training of staff. 18 19 I will now leave this slide up as a prompt for the 20 following discussion: 21 22 What local government compliance and 23 enforcement practices are imposing 24 unnecessary costs on business and the 25 community in the area of the environment, 26 public health and safety, parking and road 27 transport, companion animal management. 28 29 Or any other areas that discussants may wish to raise, and: 30 31 What recommendations should IPART make to 32 reduce or eliminate these costs and to 33 improve local government compliance and 34 enforcement practices in these or any other 35 areas? 36 37 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Alexandra. 38 Contributions around the table. I was wondering, John, if 39 you wouldn't mind starting off 40 41 MR HART: John Hart, Restaurant and Catering of NSW. I 42 was going to ask whether food was not included because it 43 was not on the list there or are we captured under 44 environment generally. 45 46 THE CHAIRMAN: It's health 47 .4/12/2012 52 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 MR HART: It should be included. Thanks, Peter. I wanted 2 to start with a comment about the process. We all very 3 much appreciate the work that is put into the food area by 4 the Food Authority and also by a number of local councils 5 and there is great job being done. What we have to 6 consider, I think, is that the brief for this exercise is 7 removing unnecessary regulatory burden. 8 9 From what I am seeing here, we are seeing a sort of a 10 justification of the status quo rather than an interrogation 11 on where we can remove unnecessary regulatory 12 burden. I think we really need to look deeply into these 13 processes. Justifying that there are reforms and 14 improvements going on is one thing, but that does not 15 suggest there is a lessening of regulatory burden. We 16 really need to get to some specifics about some processes 17 about where the savings in lessening the burden can be 18 made. 19 20 One of the areas highlighted was the inconsistency of 21 processes and inspection processes. There are obviously a 22 number of things that can be done in that area to 23 standardise inspection. I know a lot of that work is going 24 on at the moment, but I think we really need to focus in on 25 where those sorts of areas can create efficiencies and 26 lower the burden on businesses. I can't tell you how many 27 times in a week members come to me and say, "Here are two 28 different inspections, one in one of my businesses in this 29 area and one business in this area and they are totally 30 different." That means we are not getting any efficiency 31 across the process. 32 33 At the other end of the reporting, I think we have a 34 particular concern with the name-and-shame process and the 35 way that process works. We certainly believe that in 36 moving to a streamlined scores-on-doors type approach, we 37 would get a much better outcome than persisting with this 38 name-and-shame scheme, but that also needs to be backed on 39 consistency of inspection processes and reporting. 40 41 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, John. Peter, would you like 42 to comment. 43 44 MR SUTHERLAND: Peter Sutherland, NSW Food Authority. 45 We have been in a legislative mandated partnership with local 46 government since 2008. In 2008, roles and responsibilities 47 were issued for both the Food Authority and the local .4/12/2012 53 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 councils in terms of food safety and food safety regulation 2 within the state. 3 4 Those protocols and those guidelines have been in 5 operation now for four years. We have just completed a 6 formal evaluation of that program with local government. 7 I think the results of that evaluation show that the 8 partnership approach has been working with local councils. 9 We have, I think, reduced duplication of inspections and 10 audits. We have put framework around fees and charges and 11 how they can be charged and applied. 12 13 I acknowledge, John, the consistency area is one area 14 that we still have work to do in, but I think we have, in 15 the first four years, managed to go from something like 37 16 different inspection formats down to one format that now 17 over 66 per cent of councils are using. We provide, on a 18 yearly basis, training to environmental health officers 19 with councils to try and standardise the inspection and 20 standardise enforcement and compliance activities that they 21 undertake. We think that that is taking hold, but there is 22 still some work to do there. 23 24 We are currently reviewing some different programs 25 that we have in place. One of these, as John just 26 mentioned, is the scores-on-doors program. We are looking 27 at the introduction of a standardised inspection format for 28 all councils, so we are pushing that fairly hard with 29 councils. That, combined with the training, I think, will 30 improve the consistency. Like John and Restaurant and 31 Catering, we do get comments from various food business 32 operators, for example, that the inspector in council A has 33 done something totally different from the inspector in 34 council B. So we become, in some ways, a bit of an arbiter 35 there and try and solve those issues. 36 37 There is still more work done, but I think we have 38 come a long way in the four years. We would like to think 39 that the partnership approach that we have within food and 40 food safety for New South Wales is an example of the best 41 practice in trying to work together in the one area. 42 43 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Peter. Next, Corin? 44 45 MS MOFFATT: Corin Moffat from the Division of Local 46 Government. We are certainly very interested in the Food 47 Authority model. It has come out in the course of both the .4/12/2012 54 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 IPART review and indeed the independent panel that this is 2 a really good model for us to consider in terms of the way 3 consultation and collaboration is built into the approach 4 as well as the ability to fund activities through cost 5 recovery, and that is the thing we are certainly keen to do 6 in the context of our reform. 7 8 We would also have a view that the companion animals 9 approach is an effective model in terms of a centralised 10 register and the ability of councils to fund enforcement 11 activity. We do not get a strong message about unnecessary 12 burden in terms of companion animals activity. The 13 messages we get are more about councils's ability to 14 increase compliance in this activity. 15 16 If you look at the Companion Animals Taskforce 17 discussion paper, I think all the evidence suggested that 18 they were actually looking for a further tightening of the 19 regime and looking at things like breeder licensing as an 20 option to improve outcomes for animals, so I think there 21 are some real tensions here. 22 23 I should also point out that the Companion Animals 24 Taskforce will also be looking at the issue of dangerous 25 dogs early in the new year and will be providing advice to 26 government on that. That is certainly a key area that has 27 emerged through their work about councils' ability to 28 enforce around the issue of dangerous dogs. 29 30 There was something said about swimming pools, and it 31 was mentioned briefly in the slides. As a background, the 32 government has just introduced amendments to the 33 Swimming Pools Act to try to improve compliance with 34 swimming pool safety barriers. That has been a really 35 interesting process. I think it really raises the question about 36 what is unnecessary burden? If you look at the number of 37 child drownings in New South Wales, the numbers are 38 actually very small, but if you look at, obviously, the social 39 and health costs for drownings and near drownings, they are 40 very significant indeed. 41 42 I think there is a strong public support for 43 increasing compliance when the evidence is something like 44 80 per cent of pool barriers do not actually comply with 45 the safety requirements. 46 47 I think it raises the real question about what is .4/12/2012 55 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 unnecessary regulation and by whose definition, and that is 2 sometimes difficult for us to reconcile. The result of the 3 consultation around this exercise is that the government is 4 putting in place again a centralised register for swimming 5 pools, which seems to be what people are supporting, so 6 that is positive from our perspective. The amendments also 7 put in place the ability for councils to charge for 8 inspection, which will provide an important funding stream 9 for them to undertake that activity. 10 11 Again, I think there are some tensions in doing some 12 of these things that are important to reflect on, because, 13 in the consultation around the swimming pools proposals, we 14 got a strong message from councils, rightly, about the need 15 for cost recovery in this activity, because there was never 16 really any consensus on what cost recovery actually looked 17 like. 18 19 Equally there was a strong message, and rightly so, 20 that one size does not fit all. What Blacktown might need 21 to do in terms of enforcing swimming pools will be very 22 different from what Bourke might need to do. That is 23 certainly a view that we had sympathy with and therefore 24 proposed that councils needed to develop their own 25 inspection regime that is appropriate to their local 26 community. But that is in conflict with the message we 27 often get from the public, and water safety advocates, 28 which is that they want something consistent, the same in 29 every place, and easy to navigate. So in all of these 30 things, you are always having to balance very different 31 perspectives and very legitimate perspectives. 32 33 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Corin. I am going to ask Noel 34 now and then Paul from Caltex, and someone from one the 35 councils. 36 37 MR BAUM: I am Noel Baum. I am the director of policy 38 at the Local Government and Shires Association. I would 39 like to declare an interest. I am a member of the Food 40 Regulation Forum and have been involved in that process 41 since even longer than Peter Sutherland - way back to 2002. 42 43 This is quite a hard area to actually deal with 44 because we are all over the shop. It's the liquorice 45 allsorts section, but I would like to comment on the food 46 question initially. I do not think we are being defensive 47 in saying this, but I think IPART has actually discovered .4/12/2012 56 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 what are the main issues and they have covered those on 2 page 3. 3 4 I am quite confident that between the Food Authority 5 and the local government, we know that there are issues and 6 we know that there is work to do on them. I am not going 7 to hide for a moment from that. We know that there is a 8 red hot issue with the notification register. We know that 9 inconsistent inspection is an issue that is raised time and 10 time again. That is an accepted challenge in this field. 11 It is an accepted challenge in any field where you have to 12 do inspections, and it is just magnified when you have do 13 it across 152 councils rather than across six branches of a 14 state agency, but we accept that is a challenge and we are 15 working on that. I thought we had the mobile food business 16 registration sorted. You didn't mention that, Peter. Are 17 we nearly there? 18 19 MR SUTHERLAND: We are, I guess, in an intricate process 20 which is -- 21 22 MR BAUM: All right; we're working on it. 23 24 MR SUTHERLAND: -- to produce guidelines and we are 25 getting more comments on that. 26 27 THE CHAIRMAN: That has been one issue that has been 28 raised. 29 30 MR BAUM: No, I accept it has been raised. I thought we 31 were a little further down the track. With respect to the 32 final one, which is the inconsistent application of fees by 33 councils under the Food Authority fee cap, I need to raise 34 a local government perspective on that. That there are 35 different levels of fees charged depends on whether a 36 council actually wants to subsidise the fees. So it is 37 actually where councils have decided to be slightly more 38 generous that is leading to this sort of change. I am not 39 sure that that is necessarily a bad thing. One of the 40 things that we negotiated a partnership on was that 41 councils had to maintain some level of autonomy, and one of 42 the ways of doing that was in terms of how a council dealt 43 with what it saw were its public service obligations in 44 regard to fees. 45 46 Moving on quickly, I am not sure that this process has 47 actually nailed what the issues are in the environmental .4/12/2012 57 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 area. You admitted yourself that you did not get a lot of 2 stuff. We are not picking up huge amounts. I would be 3 very interested, when we move on and hear from some of the 4 council representatives in the room, whether they can set 5 us straight because practitioners have a different view 6 than policy people. 7 8 I think I can just simply say that with the public 9 health and safety stuff, especially the public health 10 stuff, there are some issues. I think everyone who works 11 with New South Wales Health around these issues would like 12 to advance that partnership further than it currently is, 13 and some work certainly needs to be done in that area. 14 15 I will pass in terms of companion animal management, 16 because I think Corin covered that adequately, and in terms 17 of parking and road transport, it depends where the debate 18 goes there because I am not a technical expert. 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: You can always come back for a second go. 21 22 MR BAUM: Thank you. 23 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Noel, Paul? 25 26 MR SEAGE: Paul Seage, from Caltex. I will restrict my 27 comments to the environmental section, which has the 28 greatest impact on our business. Caltex operates service 29 stations in most, if not all, of the 152 councils in New 30 South Wales, so we do experience the vagaries of 31 enforcement of regulation across those council areas. We 32 have one overwhelming point and that is what we would 33 really want is just a simple competent regulator - someone 34 who has a clear decision-making authority, has the 35 organisational capability to understand the regulation it 36 is there to enforce. Often the group that develops the 37 regulation is best, they are more focused on the intent of 38 the regulation, rather than often fine print, which you 39 will see some councils point to and start enforcement 40 actions on. 41 42 We have seen some examples where councils have actually 43 prevented environmental improvements due their own 44 interpretations of the PoEO Act, for instance. We have had 45 equipment that has been approved by the EPA and then we 46 have had councils say they didn't believe it complied with 47 the legislation, so that held us up for a year or so. .4/12/2012 58 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 We are often in situations where councils will do an 3 audit on one or more environmental regulations and come up 4 with some findings. Then we have to spend quite some 5 period of time bringing in the EPA or some other regulators 6 to resolve the issues because there has been some 7 misinterpretation. I think, overwhelmingly, what we are 8 after is a very clear understanding of who the regulator is 9 for a particular regulation. We need to carefully collect 10 which regulations are to be enforced by councils, and that 11 should be based around whether specialised knowledge is 12 required or often when the regulation itself is risk based, 13 it requires interpretation. 14 15 We have seen examples in the contaminated land area 16 where the council that squeaks loudest gets the most 17 action. Both Caltex and the EPA would rather focus on a 18 risk-based approach where the highest risk issues get dealt 19 with first. The less noisy councils should not be missing 20 out on land remediation or environmental works just because 21 other councils have greater resources. 22 23 What we have found is that in areas where there is a 24 very clear regulator, such as trade waste or air emissions 25 in licensed sites, it is much easier to operate businesses 26 in those spaces and engage in a useful dialogue with just a 27 single person or a group of folk to resolve issues. So, 28 overwhelmingly, we think the biggest issue is demarcation 29 and sorting that out. 30 31 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Paul. Which one of 32 the council representatives would like to go first - Kelie? 33 34 MS LOWE: Kelie Lowe from the Shoalhaven Council. In the 35 environment area, with contaminated land, there is 36 potentially that duplication or uncertainty as to who is 37 the appropriate regulatory authority. A lot of time withe 38 service stations, we might get a complaint from the public 39 and it is unclear as to whether it is the regulatory 40 authority in that instance or whether we take action and 41 appeal on that. 42 43 Just going back to the example of the Food Authority, 44 that works really well for us because we have certain 45 contact and we can go back and get that specialist 46 expertise and make sure that we are making decisions that 47 are consistent with other councils and the state .4/12/2012 59 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 government. But often with contaminated land we might not 2 have that approach. We used to have liaison meetings with 3 our counterparts in the state government, with the EPA, for 4 example, so we could discuss those issues of contaminated 5 land or other environmental issues to make sure that we 6 were able to link into that special advice or maintain that 7 consistency. I think that the Food Authority example could 8 help with those situations. 9 10 The other example in the environment which goes across 11 the previous session is the conflict between bushfire and 12 threatened species legislation. In the Shoalhaven, it is a 13 big issue that comes up all the time. We might have a 14 development application that comes in and we will have this 15 conflict on how we resolve those two issues. It takes up 16 an enormous amount of council's time as well as the 17 applicant's time. 18 19 The thing with threatened species is that you cannot 20 always rely on that strategic level assessment of 10 years 21 ago. The natural environment is a dynamic thing. Animals 22 move in and out of areas, so you cannot always rely on 23 assessments that have been done a long time ago and that is 24 another impact on developers as well. 25 26 Then there is the question of enforcement if DAs are 27 not complied with. If there is a requirement to maintain 28 habitat features for certain threatened species, who is the 29 regulator in that case? There is a conflict and a need 30 for it to be spelled out as well with the EPA Act in terms 31 of species legislation. 32 33 Some of the areas where duplication with regard to 34 public health could be reduced is with the management of 35 onsite sewerage systems. Aerated wastewater treatment 36 systems have to be regulated by council. So you have to 37 get your approval to operate and then install the system. 38 Then if you have an aerated wastewater treatment system, 39 you have to get a service contractor to come and service 40 that system quarterly in accordance with the New South 41 Wales health certification for that system. 42 43 Perhaps there are regulations that could be changed. 44 We could have the Local Government Act amended so that 45 councils did not need to go in consistently and inspect 46 those systems as well. We get complaints from the 47 community to say, "There is a duplication. I got this .4/12/2012 60 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 service contractor to come and maintain that system, and 2 you guys are coming and having a look at it as well." So 3 they have to pay two fees - one for us and one for the 4 service contractor. 5 6 Going back to food shops, with mobile food premises, 7 sometimes you will need to get a development application to 8 actually hold an event, to have a mobile food shop or 9 temporary food premises operating. You also may need an 10 approval under the Local Government Act. Then we need to 11 come in and regulate you under the Food Act as well to make 12 sure you comply with safe food handling practices. 13 14 I know that is an issue that is being worked on, but 15 that is another area where we could reduce duplication. 16 Solid fuel heaters is another issue. Under the Local 17 Government Act, you are required to have approval to 18 install a solid fuel heater. In our area, that is another 19 big issue as well. When the installers come in and install 20 it, there could perhaps be some certification from those 21 installers to say that it has been installed correctly 22 rather than having council go and reinspect it and place 23 more costs on the home owner to have to get us to come out 24 and inspect them. 25 26 As for the changes and amendments to the Public Health 27 Act, we think they are great. We think we should be doing 28 more regulatory activities with swimming pools, cooling 29 towers and drinking water supplies. But our council is 30 very conscious of not charging fees, not imposing a burden 31 on the community and businesses or our tourist facilities. 32 It is very difficult for us, therefore, to be able to 33 provide those regulatory services and we don't really have 34 a cost recovery. Even though our fees and charges are 35 probably one of the lowest, we still get complaints. 36 37 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Kelie. I was going 38 to ask Luke, then Yasmin, and then another member of a 39 council. 40 41 MR AITKEN: Luke Aitken from the NSW Business Chamber. I 42 will pick up on those first points that John and Peter 43 raised around food services. Obviously I think everyone is 44 in agreement that it is a good model, but I think, in 45 practice, there is a lot that can be learned from metro 46 councils in terms of what happens in the regions. By force 47 of the lack of skills out in our regional areas, many .4/12/2012 61 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 councils are sharing services. They are sharing the 2 services of the environmental health officer. 3 4 I think that is a big part of moving towards a greater 5 consistency in terms of food regulation. That is probably 6 something that the government or IPART could recommend 7 that there be some sort of mandated approach to the shared 8 services model and also some funding to assist in getting 9 it to happen more regularly in the metropolitan areas. 10 11 With the mobile food businesses, I think there will be 12 an emerging trend with more of these mobile operators, not 13 just in food but in other areas. When I was preparing our 14 submission, I took a look at something that is happening in 15 Randwick Council - a mobile barber shop. A business owner 16 takes her mobile van around, stops off at sporting events 17 and gives haircuts to people - I don't think I would 18 actually need it. 19 20 The approach that the councils take there is really 21 applying precautionary principles in the way it is 22 regulating that business. So it is really just looking at 23 minimising the impact that that business could have on 24 bricks and mortar businesses already established in the 25 area. I think that is something that really should be 26 taken on as something to apply for so when these new 27 ventures come up, not to try and regulate for any perceived 28 problems, but actually to see how they operate and apply 29 practical solutions and assist the business in maintaining 30 its operations. 31 32 I do not really have much to say in term of the 33 environmental issues. The solid fuel heaters is something 34 that Kelie raised. I think that is something that councils 35 can actually put under their local approvals policy as an 36 exempt type of development. That is an area where we 37 should be looking to the principal legislation and not 38 really looking for the councils individually to make 39 changes. I think we should be really looking at that 40 principal legislation and where things are being put. 41 42 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Luke. Yasmin. 43 44 MS KING: I am Yasmin King, New South Wales Small Business 45 Commissioner. I also sit on the Food Regulation Forum, 46 although I have only just recently joined that. I think 47 there are a lot of good examples of good practices that the .4/12/2012 62 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Food Authority is doing. However, it is certainly by no 2 means perfect. The length of time it has taken to get the 3 mobile food guidelines up, Peter, is an example of some of 4 the challenges. 5 6 Getting back to the third session about the issue of 7 outcomes, one of things that became very clear in some of 8 the areas is that no matter the enforcement and penalties 9 certain people which will make any difference in terms of 10 their behaviour. This was the case in some of the 11 multicultural areas in the food business. They worked with 12 a council, which has very strong links in the multicultural 13 community, to get back to basically doing a very educative 14 process on getting people to understand why a lot of these 15 regulations existed and why they needed to be worried about 16 following these practices. 17 18 It was quite labour intensive, but it was incredibly 19 effective in terms of changing the behaviour of some very 20 consistent offenders in breaking regulations to actually 21 see them starting to understand why they needed to change 22 their practices. That is one of the things that they will 23 now look very closely at as to how that can be rolled out 24 in other areas. I think why I am particularly highlighting 25 that is that what they did was, instead of saying, "We keep 26 putting in these rules. They keep getting broken. What do we 27 need to do - put more rules, increase the fees? What are 28 the ways we can actually get the outcome we want?" They 29 then thought, "Hang on a minute, maybe we should look at 30 the actual education process to achieve the outcome", and 31 that has made an impact. I think that the real challenge 32 in the whole regulatory area, in all of these categories, 33 is more regulation or more penalties. More inspections 34 sometimes is not the answer. It is about enforcing what 35 you have and just weeding out those who do the wrong thing 36 and improving the overall education process. Thank you. 37 38 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Yasmin. Now, Stuart or David? 39 40 MR NUNN: Stuart Nunn, Holroyd City Council. Firstly 41 I would like to reiterate what a number of people have 42 said. From council's perspective we, at Holroyd, really do 43 like the role that the Food Authority plays. From 44 council's perspective, we really would like to see the same 45 level of apprenticeship being rolled out with the Ministry 46 of Health and also with the EPA. A day-to-day challenge 47 that council has, and as an officer who has been inspecting .4/12/2012 63 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 for 16 years, is that we do get complaints in terms of 2 consistency of inspections. The work that the Food 3 Authority has done in looking at standardising inspection 4 formats, providing training to officers, has gone a very 5 long way to addressing some of those issues. Again, that 6 really supports that model that the Food Authority is 7 putting forward. 8 9 We do get a lot of criticism about fees. That is not 10 just something unique to Holroyd; across the State, that is 11 an overarching issue. Different councils look at what the 12 framework is under the food regulation for what they can 13 charge for their inspections and their administration fees, 14 but different councils choose to subsidise those fees as 15 they see fit, and a large part of that is to look at the 16 council's cost recovery mechanisms. Some charge more; some 17 charge less. I really don't know what the answer there is. 18 If you look to standardise those fees, that, in itself, may 19 impact on the services that some councils provide. 20 21 One thing that we have seen over time, and it is 22 something that Kelie outlined here, was that we did have a 23 good working relationship with the EPA in terms of having a 24 liaison with them. But over a period of time, that has 25 been whittled away. Even from a council perspective now, 26 it is difficult to contact the EPA and find the right 27 person we should be speaking to. So from a community point 28 of view, I really can see frustration there as to knowing 29 the clear delineation of functions as to who is responsible 30 for what. Part of that would be again to look at that 31 adoption of the Food Authority-type role having a dedicated 32 local government unit. 33 34 One thing the councils have had over time is more 35 regulations passed on to us to enforce. We have also had 36 licensing shifts as well. Over a period of time, we have 37 seen increasing licences from the EPA handed back to 38 council to regulate. That has been a challenge for 39 councils because we have then had to try to upskill the 40 officers to make sure that we are capable of dealing and 41 regulating those things that used to be governed by the 42 EPA. So that has been a challenge for council over a 43 period of time. 44 45 One thing I would say is that, from the council point 46 of view, resource sharing is a particular area where 47 I think some councils do well. That is an area that should .4/12/2012 64 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 be looked into a lot further. I know with Holroyd, not 2 meaning to beat our drums too much, we have a resource 3 sharing operation with Hay Shire Council. We provide 4 services to Hay by going down and assisting them in doing 5 their inspections so they are able to meet their target. 6 I think that that is a particular model that should be 7 taken forward by other councils. 8 9 To reiterate comments that Yasmin made, education on 10 regulation is a very important fact and it is what council is 11 doing. The challenge is finding the balance between the 12 two. Holroyd is a very proactive council when it comes to 13 education. We are running in excess of a dozen seminars 14 each year, just for our food businesses alone, to try to 15 build the gap with their understanding as to what the 16 requirements are under the legislation. But the challenge 17 that we have, especially with multicultural areas, is 18 getting the information across, especially when you have 19 people with English as a second language or low literacy 20 rates. So we need to get creative in how we deliver the 21 message to them. 22 23 The last thing I think I wanted to touch on here as 24 well is that there was a comment made about local approvals 25 policies. We are looking, out of this exercise, to keep 26 cutting red tape. For the councils to generate a local 27 approvals policy, which means that we need to go through 28 concepts of advertising, going to the minister for 29 approval, going back and putting things on exhibition. 30 That all takes time and some people would argue that it is 31 possibly an unnecessary amount of redtape. 32 33 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Stuart. I was 34 going to ask Michael from the Australian Logistics Council, 35 then Elizabeth Ann, general manager heavy vehicles, Roads 36 and Maritime Services, then David from council, and then 37 Madeleine, from Fair Trading. Michael. 38 39 MR KILGARIFF: Thank you. Michael Kilgariff, Australian 40 Logistics Council, for those of you who don't know, we 41 represent many of the sort of larger logistics companies 42 such as Coles, Woolworths, Toll, Linfox, Metcash, I guess 43 I wanted to lay that on the table so you can understand 44 where I am coming from. 45 46 Paul, from Caltex, outlined his view of, I guess, the 47 complexities of having a number of small regulators having .4/12/2012 65 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 a large impact on the industry. That certainly applies in 2 the logistics industry. For that reason, we are moving to 3 a national heavy vehicle regulator - so at the national 4 level. We would hope that, to some degree, that would 5 also, I guess, assist and facilitate with some of the 6 issues that we have at the local government level. 7 8 For us, local government is a very key regulator in 9 the logistics industry. I guess a good example of that is 10 the fact that 80 per cent of the roads in Australia are 11 actually owned by local government. Where we run into 12 great problems is what we call the first or last mile 13 issues. Yes, those large vehicles may be able to use the 14 Hume and various other national freight routes, but often 15 those distribution centres, those supermarkets, those 16 facilities that are quite critical to the logistics 17 industry do require the ability to use local government 18 roads, which is where we start to run into some issues. 19 20 The fact is that local government, to a great degree, 21 is a fairly important regulator when it comes to allowing 22 access to logistics infrastructure and local government 23 roads. This was an issue that has been raised also by the 24 National Transport Commission in its consideration of 25 performance based standards and how they are operating at 26 the national level. 27 28 It is recognised that the industry does have a huge 29 problem with local government processing those 30 applications. There is a view that there is certainly a 31 lot of red tape being applied to those decisions, and the 32 fact is that a lot of local governments are not actually 33 making the decisions that, in our view, they should be 34 making under both state and national regulation. That is 35 partly because they just do not have the knowledge or the 36 resources that would enable them to make decisions about 37 the sorts of impacts that heavy vehicles may have on their 38 roads. 39 40 That is an issue for us in that there is an avoidance 41 in making a decision because they do not actually have the 42 resources that would enable them to make a decision. The 43 recommendation that came up before about the flying squad 44 of engineers is certainly something that we would find 45 quite attractive. Not only would it actually give councils 46 the resources, it would also mean that there would be some 47 consistency of decision making across councils, because we .4/12/2012 66 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 need a council in Western Sydney to be applying exactly the 2 same rules that a council on the other side of Sydney, or 3 even up in the north or south coast, might be making. At 4 this time, that is not really happening. 5 6 Another issue that we have, which has also been raised 7 by the Productivity Commission report that was mentioned 8 before, is the whole issue of curfews in local government 9 areas, and in particular deliveries to distribution centres 10 and supermarkets outside of hours. 11 12 We are finding that a lot of the curfews that are 13 imposed in local government areas do not, in our view, have 14 a lot of validity, but because of the fact that the local 15 government is the regulator, they are allowed to stand. 16 What that means is that those heavy vehicles that could be 17 delivering in off-peak times are effectively having to 18 compete with people going to work, or delivering their kids 19 to school, because that is the time they need to be getting 20 to where they need to deliver the goods, and that is the 21 same time as people are travelling to work and to schools 22 and all those sorts of things. In effect, what is 23 happening is that we are not managing the demand of our 24 roads very well because of the fact that these vehicles 25 need to be out on the roads all at the same time. 26 27 The New South Wales department of transport, Transport 28 for NSW, recently released a draft New South Wales port and 29 freight strategy. In that strategy, they identified 30 off-peak deliveries as being quite a critical issue. They 31 are developing an off-peak freight action plan. I guess we 32 would hope that IPART and the councils would engage with 33 Transport for NSW in identifying how best we can use the 34 assets that we currently have to ensure that our freight 35 logistics industry is as efficient and productive as we can 36 possibly make it, because ultimately, costs that are borne 37 by the logistics industry are passed on to consumers. 38 39 I think that is something that we need to remember 40 when we are talking about costs. I am happy to respond to 41 further comments. 42 43 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine, thank you very much, 44 Michael. Elizabeth Ann. 45 46 MS ANN: My name is Elizabeth Ann, and I am the general 47 manager for national heavy vehicle reform and .4/12/2012 67 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 implementation in New South Wales. I will clarify that 2 I do not work for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. 3 I represent New South Wales and the interests of New South 4 Wales in negotiating the national reforms. 5 6 Michael has raised some really good points there. 7 I know that similar points were raised in the NTC's 8 regulatory impact statement on the heavy vehicle national 9 laws, and they continue to be raised by industry and local 10 government in a lot of forums that have been run by the 11 National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. 12 13 A couple of the issues that I saw raised there were 14 around PBS and route assessment, which Michael, again 15 rightly said, is due to a lack of skills and availability 16 of funding in local government. 17 18 The plans that we have been discussing in the national 19 forum are around the availability of, I guess, identifying 20 a panel of skilled people that would be able to be accessed 21 by local government. This discussion is still underway. 22 We need to see how that would work across local governments 23 and get their agreements to that, but I will say that it 24 has been taken on board and there are plans underway to try 25 to address some of those issues. 26 27 I know that within RMS, in the network services area, 28 there are also discussions taking place at the moment with 29 a few local governments about how we can assist with 30 engineers to come out and to work particularly on bridges 31 and some of the pinch points around the country. 32 33 In terms of the accuracy of the maps, PBS design 34 approvals and mapping, from 21 January will be taken over 35 by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. It previously sat 36 with the NTC. We hope that some of the pooled resources 37 will be able to assist in, first of all, getting the 38 accuracy right. In addition to that, there are also the 39 issues of interaction of new technology in vehicles with 40 particular roads that are included on those PBS maps. 41 42 I think people are aware of all of these issues and 43 there has been priority given to them. You can imagine the 44 national agenda is huge. There are lots of issues to deal 45 with when you are introducing national regulation, just as 46 there would be in trying to resolve some of these issues 47 about the duplication of laws and legislation and who the .4/12/2012 68 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 regulators are within New South Wales. 2 3 One of the other issues that was raised in the 4 submissions was about state oversight or review of local 5 government access decisions. On that front, I do know that 6 the Heavy Vehicle National Law, which was passed in 7 Queensland and which will be adopted on the approval of 8 parliaments around Australia sometime in mid to late 2013, 9 does address the road manager's role. The approach taken 10 there is that every road manager, be that a state road 11 manager or a local government road manager, will remain 12 responsible for the decisions that are made about the roads 13 that they are responsible for, with the idea that the state 14 should have oversight or be able to overrule those 15 decisions. 16 17 The New South Wales government is very sensitive to 18 the arrangements that are in place and the autonomy of 19 local government. So we have a policy position that, 20 although the Heavy Vehicle National Law may give us the 21 ability to review or oversee those decisions, we will not 22 do so and that our current arrangements will stay in place. 23 We are, however, open to discussions about how those 24 decisions can be made better, or recommendations to come 25 out of IPART, to assist us with the consultation process 26 with local government to see how we can streamline that 27 process for industry. 28 29 Local government has an understanding of the needs of 30 the local community that we cannot necessarily have at a 31 state level. We do not want to overrule the autonomy of 32 local government and there is also, of course, the funding 33 of planning issues around local government roads and how 34 that interacts with the grants programs or with other 35 funding that is needed. If we allow very heavy vehicles to 36 go on local government roads, we obviously need to ensure 37 that the infrastructure and the amenity of the local 38 community is not unduly affected. So there is a balancing 39 there about how the local government and the state should 40 interact in future while also recognising the needs of 41 industry. 42 43 I will just outline a couple of things that are being 44 discussed in the national forum at the moment. We are 45 developing national assessment guidelines so that 46 consistency of decision making across all road managers can 47 be better addressed by local government and state .4/12/2012 69 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 government, so that whichever road managers are looking at 2 an issue, they will be applying the same standards and the 3 same decision-making processes. 4 5 I have already raised the issue of the possibility 6 that there may be some kind of engineering panel where the 7 skills are made more accessible to local government in 8 order to address some of those pinch points or the 9 inaccuracies that we have identified. 10 11 The other thing that is proposed is case management at 12 a national level is that, that the National Heavy Vehicle 13 Regulator will have case managers. So if someone wants to 14 drive a truck from Darwin to Melbourne, they will look at 15 the whole of the route and go to those road managers and 16 try to sort out if there any particular issues with the 17 access along the way. They can identify whether the issue 18 is to do with the infrastructure or whether the issue is 19 actually to do with the skills or technical resources, so 20 we can get a better overall picture to form a strategy to 21 address some of these issues. 22 23 One of the challenges I would like to raise for us 24 with local government relates to consultation. When there 25 is an issue that needs to be addressed, we do not find 26 there is a peak body. There is the LGSA or the ROCs, but 27 the individual councils do not necessarily feel that - 28 sorry, the expression that has been given to us from some 29 member of those and separate councils is that we cannot 30 necessarily consult with that peak body and expect that 31 they represent the views of councils. You can imagine when 32 there is a decision to be made or when we are trying to 33 develop a strategy, it is quite challenging for us to find 34 not only the resourcing, but also to develop timely results 35 for industry and for local government, if we need to go and 36 individually talk to each of those councils. 37 38 I think that echoes the discussion that was in the 39 last session also about how we can actually improve our 40 ability to engage and address those issues that are raised. 41 42 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Elizabeth. David? 43 44 MR DAY: David Day, from Wollongong City Council. I 45 think the majority of our submissions appear to have been 46 addressed so far. There are a couple of things I wanted to 47 mention and one is that there is broad legislation. We .4/12/2012 70 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 spend a lot of time talking about planning, but from an 2 enforcement point of view, there are always about three or 3 four different Acts under which you maybe be able to do 4 enforcement. 5 6 When we introduce a new piece of legislation, we do 7 not always remove the enforcement component from another 8 piece of legislation. So if something comes to us and we 9 need to deal with it, will we deal with it under the Local 10 Government Act or the EPA Act or the PoEO Act? That takes 11 a lot of time and a lot of resources. Whilst most councils 12 would spend, I guess, the majority of their legal fees 13 relating to planning and DAs, there is an awful lot of 14 legal cost that relates to enforcement components of 15 councils as well. So streamlining and looking at the 16 legislation is probably the key bit at the top. 17 18 There are other things like cost shifting from other 19 state agencies. Being in Wollongong, we are very fortunate 20 that we have a local EPA person who is very close to us. 21 We have WorkCover as well, so we are able to get those 22 resources very quickly. We work well with the Food 23 Authority and the public health unit as well. But where 24 does local government fit in with those state agencies? 25 The Food Authority makes it very clear that we look after 26 food premises, but if it is a butcher's premises, we know 27 that it goes to the Food Authority for them to inspect. 28 When you are liaising with WorkCover or the EPA, it is very 29 difficult to know is it them or is it us? While it may not 30 be a red tape issue, it is definitely a cost to council 31 themselves. 32 33 We may go and do an inspection - if a place is more 34 than 2,500 cubic metres, then that is the EPA - but we are 35 not sure because it is just a big pile of dirt out there. 36 Quite often, there are joint inspections where the EPA is 37 saying it's yours or it's theirs, so there is lots of 38 toing-and-froing. 39 40 Another good example is the Department of Planning, 41 where there is a larger development, they are the consent 42 authority, they are the ARA for enforcement, but only 43 relating to planning issues and only relating to that 44 particular site. So anything that occurs outside the 45 curtilage of that boundary is the responsibility of 46 council. If I am dealing with a major pollution incident, 47 trying to collect evidence from a site that is from the .4/12/2012 71 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Department of Planning - the regulatory authority for it - 2 they are saying, "Well, we're not authorised under the PoEO 3 Act. We are only authorised under the EPA Act." 4 5 It is really difficult for us, so we are trying to 6 share resources. If we are in the Local Court or the Land 7 and Environment Court prosecuting someone, we can't get 8 them to do restorative works on the site because we are not the 9 ARA for the site because the Department of Planning is the 10 ARA for the site. That is probably a good example and 11 I can see by the smiles on a few people's faces that you 12 have all had that experience along the way as well. 13 14 That is where it comes down to that red tape issue as 15 well, and really, from a broader perspective, what is the 16 role of state government agencies? Is it more advisory in 17 setting the legislation and the parameters for how a 18 council actually undertakes the work; or is it the way it 19 is at the moment - you do some of it and we do some of it? 20 21 Swimming pools is probably a good example, with the 22 new legislation coming in, in the future, we will have this 23 new state register. I think that is a really good idea for 24 lots of other things apart from just swimming pools. The 25 feeling that we get is that eventually councils will be 26 responsible for making sure that everybody in the LGA 27 enters that data onto their database. 28 29 We have between 16,000 and 20,000 swimming pools in 30 our local government area. How many people and how much 31 resources will I need in order to be able to satisfy our 32 obligation to make sure that people are entering that data 33 on the database? Am I checking databases? Am I going to 34 aerial photography? So there is cost shifting back to 35 local government when new legislation or agencies introduce 36 new things. 37 38 I think that will happen with underground petroleum 39 storage systems administration as well. The EPA is 40 currently administering that. It has the database. It is 41 collecting the administration fees and the application fees 42 for exemptions, but eventually, if that gets handed back to 43 council, will we have the resources and the skills and the 44 expertise in underground petroleum storage tanks to be able 45 to take on that function? I am not really sure. I think 46 it is probably all of those things. 47 .4/12/2012 72 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 There are multiple approvals as well. We talked about 2 mobile food vendors. Hopefully we can get some clarity on 3 how that works in the future. At the moment, we say, 4 "Here's your food premises licence, but you're not allowed 5 to trade anywhere in the LGA until you go to and speak to 6 another department. They are on level 4. They will give 7 you a section 68 approval." 8 9 When it comes to running major events, at the moment, 10 with our major events, you need to make sure you lodge your 11 applications 12 to 18 month in advance. You will probably 12 need a DA and then a section 68. If it is a full-road 13 closure, that requires a 138 permit, so that will need to 14 go to the traffic committee. If it is a full-road closure, 15 then that has to go to council. If it is a part-road 16 closure, then you need a section 68 as well. If you have 17 amusement devices, you will need a section 68 for that as 18 well. If part of it is on Crown land, then you will need 19 to get agreement from them as well. If it involves part of 20 our park, you would need a park booking as well. 21 22 We talked before about having one-stop shop 23 applications where someone comes in and can be told, "Here 24 is what you need. Give us that and here is your approval." 25 It is still red tape. From an enforcement point of view, 26 it is hard enough for us sometimes to figure out what is 27 exactly the right information to give the public. If we 28 are having trouble, and we are within the industry and we 29 are trying to help people out, then I can only imagine how 30 difficult it is for some people. 31 32 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, David. Madeleine. 33 34 MS BOULTON: Madeleine Boulton, from New South Wales 35 Fair Trading. Fair Trading has two key areas of interest in 36 this part of the discussion. The first is inspections of 37 onsite plumbing and drainage work. I apologise if you did 38 talk about that this morning. 39 40 THE CHAIRMAN: No, that's fine. 41 42 MS BOULTON: You didn't? Excellent. Under some new 43 legislation that was brought in and commenced halfway 44 through this year, Fair Trading will become a single 45 regulator for onsite plumbing and drainage work across New 46 South Wales. From 1 July this year, we took on that role 47 in relation to metropolitan areas - so the old areas of .4/12/2012 73 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 operation of the Sydney Water and Hunter Water - and from 2 1 January next year, we will be picking up responsibility 3 for regulating onsite plumbing and drainage work across the 4 rest of the state. That is a role that is carried out by 5 local councils; however, we will be delegating back to 6 local councils the responsibility for actually running the 7 plumbing inspection services, similar to the way that they 8 are run now. 9 10 I guess there are a couple of key changes, and we do 11 hope that there will be some benefits flowing to industry 12 and some red tape reduction as a result of these changes. 13 Fair Trading, given that it will be the single regulator, 14 is applying a single technical standard for onsite plumbing 15 and drainage work. That is different from what was the 16 status quo, which was an old state-based technical standard 17 that had over 100 local variations, different variations 18 applied in different local council areas. That obviously 19 impacted on industry working within one council area and 20 then going on to work in another council area and having to 21 adjust the way they worked in some cases. 22 23 Although Fair Trading will be delegating the 24 inspection functions back to councils in the 25 non-metropolitan areas, all councils will be enforcing a 26 single standard which should result in greater consistency 27 across the state. 28 29 Our other area of interest really is in relation to 30 tattoo parlours. I notice one suggestion that was made in 31 submissions was there that there be a central register of 32 skin penetration premises. There is some new legislation 33 that was also brought in this year under which Fair Trading 34 and police will be responsible for regulating all tattoo 35 parlours across the state. This has not really commenced 36 yet in full. We do not have a firm commencement date as 37 yet, but we are looking at that being next year. 38 39 There will be a mandatory licensing scheme introduced 40 for all tattoo parlours. I guess, as Fair Trading and NSW 41 Police will be compliance and enforcement, they will have 42 the role of overseeing compliance and enforcement with the 43 new regulation. Any central register of skin penetration 44 premises - that does, of course, relate to tattoo parlours, 45 but also to beauty parlours, which is not so much of 46 interest to us - I think would be of benefit to Fair 47 Trading, thank you. .4/12/2012 74 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Madeleine. Would 3 anybody around the table like to make any further comments? 4 5 Now we will throw it open to the floor. We have about 6 25 minutes, which is 10 minutes longer than on the 7 schedule. Greg? 8 9 MR BLOOMFIELD: Greg Bloomfield, Fair Go. I think we 10 should to recognise that there may be a need to increase costs 11 to business in order to serve the community in some areas. 12 So we would have some cost reductions from red tape cutting, 13 but we may also need to increase redtape in some areas. 14 15 Higher density building does require more in building 16 facilities and a greater measure of tolerance than low 17 density buildings. 18 19 Companion animals, I think should be encouraged and 20 tolerated. As far as dangerous dogs are concerned, I guess 21 most of the community would think they should not be there. 22 We need to recognise the benefits of natural environment 23 that puts buffers between buildings - residential buildings 24 and business buildings. We also need to recognise that 25 roads have roles other than carrying freight, and safety of 26 residents is one of them. 27 28 The idea of naming and shaming and scores on doors, 29 has a great deal of benefit from the community point of 30 view. We can easily identify those people who are 31 complying and those who are not complying. 32 33 We need to communicate effectively to cut enforcement 34 costs. Even here, amongst ourselves, I am sure we 35 recognise that sometimes we do not communicate effectively. 36 People sometimes cannot hear what is being said. We need 37 to recognise that, at a council level, really good 38 communications with residents and with businesses can make 39 a lot of difference to how much has to be done by council 40 staff. 41 42 As far as cost recovery is concerned, it is not a very 43 difficult exercise to calculate the cost of any particular 44 item - I say that as a retired chartered accountant - and 45 to charge people for that. 46 47 On the environment area, one major authority will not .4/12/2012 75 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 necessarily enforce widely. It is easily deprived of 2 funding if the government does not wish to see it enforce 3 what it is policing, and it is very easily corrupted. So 4 there is merit in decentralisation of authorities, and 5 I realise that that causes some problems for business. The 6 fact that it is easier to operate businesses with central 7 control also means that it is easier to have environmental 8 damage and destruction by the industry that does it. 9 10 Councils probably should focus on what communities 11 want rather than what council staff wants. I think that 12 would contribute significantly to a reduction of their 13 costs because a lot of council costs involve doing things 14 that not only the community does not want, but which in 15 fact offend the community. 16 17 We should certainly explain and educate people who 18 are breaching regulations, but there is no doubt that 19 penalties that impact on profit are very effective. Years 20 ago, I tackled the question of pollution in the Sydney 21 creeks. I saw the then minister, who said, "The penalty is 22 $5,000" - that is the maximum penalty for polluting Sydney 23 creeks - and I said, "Well, we need million dollar 24 penalties and gaol sentences for directors, and you will 25 find enormous changes in behaviour." Eventually 26 Tim Moore brought that penalty in and it most certainly did 27 dramatically reduce the amount of chemical dumped in 28 Sydney creeks. Businesses are there to make profits. If you do 29 something that stops them making profits, they will change 30 their practices completely. 31 32 I will not talk about communication any more, but with 33 regard to heavy trucks using council roads, the toll in 34 terms of loss of life in truck crashes is staggering, and 35 it probably indicates the failure of national regulation. 36 The fact is that semitrailers and double Bs cannot stop in 37 the sorts of distances that are required. That is why we 38 have crashes on major highways. A car driver can slow down 39 and move off the road. A semitrailer or a double B simply 40 cannot do that, and councils do have a responsibility to 41 see that our lives are not affected too much by the 42 transport industry. I think that is very important. Road 43 safety is very important. We do not like seeing trucks 44 kill, and plenty of truck drivers go on television and talk 45 about the problems they have. 46 47 I also think that the community would say they have a .4/12/2012 76 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 right to sleep and they do not need to have heavy trucks 2 around them that would keep them awake. That does not 3 mean the job cannot be done, but they could perhaps have 4 smaller trucks. There are some important changes required. 5 6 I think the trucking industry itself needs to get its 7 act together. We have seen a lot recently on the abuse of 8 speed limiters. I often see semis moving out of their 9 lanes. Obviously on the Pacific Highway, they can't keep 10 in one lane. That is not necessarily the problem of the 11 driver, but sometimes it is. 12 13 Those are the sorts of issues we need to look at. 14 With any sort of luck, if we address them properly and if 15 we communicate properly on them, we will cut out a lot of 16 council activity and we will cut the need for red tape if 17 we all work together on that. 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Greg. Are there other 20 questions or comments? 21 22 MS RAY: Anita Ray, Civil Contractors Federation of New 23 South Wales. I want to focus on one issue, which is the 24 environment. The Civil Contractors Federation of New South 25 Wales also has a demolitions subcommittee where we have 26 members coming along. Many of our members are involved 27 in asbestos removal and disposal. 28 29 A couple of our members, at the last subcommittee 30 meeting, actually raised the issue that to dispose of 31 asbestos legally involves maybe up to $1 million in taking 32 it to a registered asbestos disposal tip, et cetera. Many 33 cowboys are just going along, not declaring that they have 34 asbestos, getting through to the cheaper tips. If they are 35 caught and if they are fined, the EPA issues a $13,000 36 fine. As I think was mentioned before, there is the 37 discrepancy between the law-abiding operator, who gets 38 imposed upon by very high fees for waste disposal, and the 39 cowboys, who actually know that in the likelihood they are 40 caught, they will get away scot-free. If they are put 41 into the insolvency, then they decide that they will open 42 up the next day with a new name. 43 44 This is something that our members are really, really 45 concerned about - there is a lack of a level playing field. 46 Those who operate legally, those who do the right thing and 47 actually pay up to $1 million in fees at the official .4/12/2012 77 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 asbestos disposal sites, are losing out on business because 2 there is a discrepancy between enforcement and compliance. 3 The legal ones, who are compliant, are actually being 4 negatively impacted in their business by the cowboys who 5 are actually getting away with it. 6 7 The long-term issue for our community is that those 8 cowboys are disposing of asbestos illegally, and that will 9 have an impact on all of the local government areas where 10 that is happening. That is probably something that IPART 11 should consider in terms of EPA and looking at how their 12 prosecution is undertaken and when a prosecution does 13 occur - the fine, the punishment, should fit the actual 14 crime. Thank you. 15 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Anita. 17 18 MR ANTCLIFFE: Peter Antcliffe, from the Association of 19 Accredited Certifiers. That was actually a good point. 20 The waste management plans that we receive are just junk. 21 It is well known in the industry that when we receive the 22 plans, whether they are tailored through a DA consent, and 23 also under a complying development, we ask the question, 24 "Is asbestos present in more than 10 square metres?" - the 25 answer is always no. Again there are cowboys out there who 26 just don't care. Those who do advise that, "Yes, there is 27 asbestos, these are the reports", have spent a considerable 28 amount of money to advise us of that. But there are just 29 not enough people in the public who actually care about 30 complying with those rules and regulations, and they are 31 just passing through. 32 33 As a certifier, obviously the environment is a big 34 thing for us as well. The main problem for us as 35 certifiers would be council requirements on pollution 36 matters. Construction sites are often polluting daily. 37 Then it comes down to the question of the enforcement of 38 that. Is it a private certifier matter? Is it a council 39 matter? Again the definition of the role of the private 40 certifier in the public sector versus private would help 41 clean up those matters in relation to the council's 42 responsibilities and those of the private certifier. That 43 is very important. 44 45 With waste management plans, again education is key. 46 One of the people here talked about education, but there is 47 also a question of languages. Where there are language .4/12/2012 78 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 barriers on sites, it is very difficult to relay messages 2 regarding clean up, waste management and pollution. It 3 does not get through to a lot of contractors. They just 4 don't understand, and that is a key element there. 5 6 Public safety is another thing that is coming up in 7 the legislation. As certifiers, we are also getting loaded 8 with a lot of life safety upgrades, which are coming into 9 the regulations or the codes coming out of the planning 10 instruments. 11 12 A very important aspect of development is upgrading 13 building stock throughout the state as development works 14 occur. This is something that has generally been a council 15 consideration for the DA process whether or not an upgrade 16 is required through that part. That is a cost to the 17 private sector that may be coming through. Again it comes 18 down to increased costs. We have DA upgrades, which have 19 come through recently, which have hit pretty hard 20 throughout all industries. 21 22 A lot of people again want to do the right thing, but to get 23 an access consultant costs $4,000 or $5,000, and particularly 24 for non complying development, you are looking at big 25 dollars for small retail areas. The larger ones are not 26 too much of a problem because the new buildings are 27 compliant with the new codes. However, when you hit old 28 building stock, it is doing a lot of damage in relation to 29 the smaller operator and again they are just going to go 30 underground. 31 32 Swimming fool fences is another matter as well. When 33 certifiers turn up to sites, swimming pool fences are a big 34 issue for us. If we sign off on an OC, we want to make 35 sure the fences do comply. Then again throughout the 36 certification industry, education as to pool fence 37 compliance is another factor. We have to constantly 38 upgrade our knowledge on pool fencing. It is probably 39 better looking at different registers for those key items. 40 With fire safety, we should we require those schedules to 41 be on a database? We need some fire contractors who do 42 actually nothing other than build confidence in the 43 projects in which they are involved, and they need to be 44 registered. 45 46 We receive certificates daily that have no weight. 47 You can see clearly that something is wrong; yet again, we .4/12/2012 79 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 can't fine that individual. It just goes nowhere. From a 2 certification perspective, we just don't have enough teeth 3 in those sorts of situations to make an impact on whether or 4 not the Department of Fair Trading can come through and 5 issue on-the-spot fines for non-compliances on a site 6 inspection. 7 8 I identify non-compliances continuously when I turn up 9 to site. Those problems should not be there. They should 10 have been corrected already. If the Department of Fair 11 Trading were to run inspections and if they found defects 12 on the site and issued fines to the builder or the 13 contractor or the manager on site, who is responsible for 14 quality and compliance, that would kind of shake things up 15 a little bit and they would actually deliver better quality 16 products to the community. 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Peter. 19 20 MR CZULOWSKI: Paul Czulowski, from Kiama Council. We 21 have a lot of local governments and we have a lot of 22 policies, but they are not uniform right across the local 23 government areas. As an example, just picking up on 24 Parramatta City Council's alfresco dining example with all the 25 permits and conditions of consent and licences, there 26 should be one standardised licence that can be used by 27 every local government across New South Wales. There 28 should be standardised conditions that are uniform right 29 across New South Wales. There should be standardised 30 education programs using technology such as Vodcast, where 31 people can click on, know what they have to do and use it 32 in a clear process. 33 34 Picking up on David Day's point of view in regards to 35 special events, we hold special events in Kiama, as 36 Wollongong does. There is not one standardised kit that is 37 utilised throughout New South Wales that says, " If you 38 need to have a road closure. This is what you need to do. 39 Here is the application form. This is the process." You 40 may need camping permits, there may be amusement devices 41 and so on. We are duplicating. There is not one standard 42 delegation that can be applied for council officers across 43 New South Wales. 44 45 Let me say to the Food Authority that I congratulate 46 them. They have attempted to develop standardised 47 delegations of authority that can be applied to councils .4/12/2012 80 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 throughout New South Wales. We should have standardised 2 notices that are legally correct, so that council does not 3 have to pay a solicitor $2,000 to see if a notice complies, 4 et cetera. Standardised signage could bought by local 5 government or subsidised right across the organisations, 6 such as signage relating to no-smoking regulations. There 7 could be a more consistent process across the organisation. 8 9 Who should be doing the inspections? That is 10 debatable. In certain areas, I agree with Caltex. In 11 regards to service stations, I would like service stations 12 to go down to local government. You have the EPA, which 13 has the underground petroleum process. Once again, who 14 should be dealing with that? 15 16 There are duplications, for example, in the no-burn 17 regulations. People who want to pile burn vegetation in 18 rural areas have to contact council to get a permit to 19 create smoke. In the bushfire season, the Rural Fire 20 Service has to go out and do an inspection. Why not hand 21 all that - because council is not trained in fire safety in 22 regards to pile burns - to the Rural Fire Service and why 23 not change the legislation? But if you do that, the 24 inspection forms, the approval forms, the delegations all 25 have to be standardised. 26 27 Why not, for example, use technology? If you are 28 going to go out there, you could have an inspection form on 29 an iPad with the conditions of consent. You could issue it 30 there and then, email it to the person, and it would also 31 go back to the council organisation. We have not come to 32 grips with sharing that technology across the council 33 organisations. You would become more efficient, more 34 effective, standardised and so on. That is one area where 35 I think where we could save a lot of money. 36 37 In regards to reducing costs on businesses, a quick 38 trivia question: who has the highest tip fee in Australia? 39 Does anyone know? In New South Wales? Yes, Wollongong. 40 Who has the second highest? Shellharbour. We are looking 41 at $267 a tonne. What is that made up of? You have GST. 42 If you want to save money for businesses, get rid of GST on 43 tip fees, number 1. Number 2, is the section 88 waste 44 levy. Does anyone know what you are paying per tonne to 45 the state government for the section 88 waste levy? Any 46 ideas? $100-odd per tonne. Okay, there is a saving there. 47 Freeze it. Right, freeze it. Next year our tip fees in .4/12/2012 81 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 our local government area will be $300 a tonne. Think 2 about that and the effect on business, on local government, 3 on the council, on the ratepayer. It is a lot of money - a 4 lot of money. You have the carbon tax on there as well. 5 So one aspect there is looking at: "Okay, yes, it is 6 there." 7 8 We talk about hypothecation. I noticed that was 9 referred to in relation to companion animals. I think we 10 get 75 per cent back; we should get 100 per cent back. 11 12 With the waste levy, you would be lucky to get maybe 13 40 per cent back, with maybe 25 per cent of your money 14 going back to waste. It does go on other things such as 15 roads and hospitals and police and the general revenue, but 16 once again, if you are going to introduce a tax like a 17 waste levy tax - and I don't know whether it's 18 constitutional or not - it should hypothecate back to what 19 it was originally meant for. Thank you. 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Paul. We will 22 hear from Cathy Griffin next. 23 24 MS GRIFFIN: Cathy Griffin, Manly Council. I wish to make 25 a few comments. For me, this whole sort of discussion has 26 been summed up by the lady from the DLG who suggested 27 that they have done a lot of work with regards to swimming 28 pool inspection and they acknowledge that one size does not 29 fit all. Therefore, they decided they were going to leave it 30 to the individual councils to determine the regime and the 31 inspections and how they were going to allocate cost and 32 all of that sort of thing. That is something new that is 33 happening over time, and I think that is exactly what we 34 are discussing here. 35 36 I would like to raise three other points, and one is 37 about the Companion Animals Act. I think, in my area, some 38 of the community is using the provision for the wildlife 39 protection areas under the Companion Animals Act, in fact, 40 to protect similar sections of bushland for native animals 41 and that sort of thing. I think it is a bit weird that 42 this is occurring under the Companion Animals Act. 43 44 There is also an emerging issue with the number of 45 companion animals that are starting to appear in the urban 46 areas. Under that Act there should be consideration for 47 beefing up on on-leash and off-leash areas. The poor old .4/12/2012 82 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 rangers now have to ensure enforcement and that owners are 2 keeping their animals on leash. We have issues with people 3 wanting to take their dogs to the beach, and I am seeing 4 situations where people are fencing in their children. 5 They are putting fences around the playground so that the 6 children are safe from the dogs off leash. Also I think 7 there are not enough requirements about the control of cats 8 being kept in at night and an acknowledgement of the effect 9 that they are having on the native wildlife. 10 11 The other area that has not been canvassed, and 12 I guess it will come under environment with a question 13 mark, is the so-called TPO, tree preservation orders, which 14 are in fact not that at all, because what people require 15 them for is to cut down trees. So that conflicts with the 16 Native Vegetation Act, which does not actually apply in 17 urban areas. Then you have the trees dispute legislation - 18 the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. These 19 are all conflicting. They do not apply to public land in 20 the urban areas. 21 22 I would like to ask you people to actually just have a 23 look at those sorts of tree preservation areas and perhaps 24 considering preserving some of the trees or writing that in 25 to some form of legislation. We have a policy at Manly 26 relating to the preservation of established trees, but it 27 is a very contentious area. 28 29 Finally, with payment of fees, I would like to see 30 councils resourced to upgrade their IT systems to accept 31 online payments in a more consistent manner, so that, 32 across all councils, there would be a payment portal. 33 Picking on the themes where you want consistency in your 34 compliance and enforcement, when we have fees for this and 35 fees for that, there should be a consistent method of 36 paying online, thus making that easier for members of the 37 public. 38 39 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cathy. 40 41 MR GILLIGAN: Adam Gilligan, from City of Newcastle 42 Compliance. I have a couple of quick observations. We 43 have heard a lot about the food regulation partnerships 44 being a good model. One of the reasons that it is good 45 model is that it is a recent model. It has looked at and 46 built upon the models of the past. I know that one of the 47 things it considered was the Protection of the Environment .4/12/2012 83 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 Operations Act as a model. That was created back in 1997. 2 Of course, the Food Act now is a more modern Act that has 3 built on and improved on that. As we see changes to the 4 EPA Act and the Local Government Act and others, we will 5 hopefully see more modern arrangements put in place, and we 6 perhaps should see more regular reviews of pieces of 7 legislation to ensure that they are kept up to date. 8 9 When PoEO was established in 1997, one of the 10 principles that was talked about was that there would be 11 one premises and one regulator. So if you were going on to 12 a state government site, it would be regulated by the EPA. 13 If you held a licence, it would be regulated by the EPA, 14 and everything else pretty much would be regulated by 15 councils. I think there is a lot to be said for that 16 principle. It keeps things very simple. In practice, that 17 is not what has occurred. 18 19 For example, if you have a site that would normally be 20 regulated by council, but there is a remediation order in 21 place by the EPA, you have two regulators there. The 22 question then is who is dealing with this particular 23 pollution issue? Is it about remediation? Is it a general 24 issue? 25 26 If you had, for example, a private business operating 27 an activity on a Department of Education site, perhaps 28 running an event, then the EPA's view is that that is a 29 council problem, because that would not actually be a 30 Department of Education activity happening right at that 31 point in time. 32 33 If we can move with some of our regulatory 34 arrangements to say that it doesn't matter who is doing 35 what and it doesn't matter what the activity is, if it is 36 on that parcel of land, it is regulator A, or it is 37 regulator B, that would give a lot of certainty to the 38 person carrying on the activity or the regulator 39 40 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Adam. Elizabeth? 41 42 MS ELENIUS: Elizabeth Elenius. At this stage, I am probably 43 talking more in relation to Pyrmont and Pyrmont Residents 44 Action Group. I don't know whether we are unique in Pyrmont, 45 but land and roads and what have you are controlled by 46 something like 15 different public agencies just in our 47 small peninsula. It might well apply more broadly, but .4/12/2012 84 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 I will talk more particularly about roads. 2 3 We have a couple of relic roads that used to be 4 arterial, but now are not, which are controlled and owned 5 by the RMS. We then have other local roads that are sort 6 of controlled by local government. With rubbish 7 collection, the local government does its roads, the RMS 8 doesn't do its roads, so that is an issue, and it is a cost 9 to the community in terms of its amenity. 10 11 I am seeking to perhaps have somebody undertake a 12 review to rationalise the ownership of roads and other 13 public lands. For instance, the dog bin was overflowing 14 for two weeks and it was absolutely disgusting in the hot 15 weather, the other day. It took me half a day to identify 16 who was responsible for that particular park. We have the 17 Office of Strategic Land. We have SHFA. We have the local 18 government area. We have umpteen different agents owning 19 little bits of land around our place. I think it would 20 make it really efficient if we could get a review of public 21 land ownership in areas such as ours and rationalisation 22 sooner than later. 23 24 The other issue is digging up roads and footpaths. 25 This must be generic. The Sydney City Council beautified a 26 section of our local road some years ago at the cost of 3 27 or $4 million - maybe $5 million. Not long after the 28 beautiful pavers were put down, they were dug up by another 29 instrumentality. That instrumentality, after a couple of 30 years, managed to replace the tiles. Not long after the 31 tiles were replaced, another instrumentality came along and 32 dug them up. 33 34 Surely to goodness, there can be some kind of better 35 coordination across those government agencies who are 36 responsible for digging up roads, so that maybe one hole 37 could be dug and they could all have a go. It is a cost to 38 local government and to the various agencies to be 39 perpetually fixing those things up. 40 41 Another matter is crossings and responsibility for 42 deciding whether a tiny little local road could be a shared 43 bike road. This was wanted by the community. That issue 44 has been going back and forth from RMS to the council for 45 the last three years. Can we get the decision for local 46 road crossings and local road bike paths put in the hands 47 of one agency, preferably with the council? All these .4/12/2012 85 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 things just add to the complexity of local government and 2 complexity for the community. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you very 5 much everybody. It has been another very good session. It is 6 now 1.20, so we should break for lunch and come back at 7 2 o'clock. Thank you. 8 9 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 10 11 UPON RESUMPTION: 12 13 Session 3: Opening Comments 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming back again. This is 16 our third session. What systemic (or more general) 17 recommendations should IPART make to reduce unnecessary 18 regulatory burdens on business and the community? We will 19 start off with an introduction from the IPART secretary, 20 Matt Edgerton. 21 22 Session 3: What systemic (or more general) recommendations 23 should IPART make to reduce unnecessary regulatory 24 burdens on business and the community? 25 26 MR EDGERTON: Good afternoon, everyone. In this third 27 session we will look at systemic issues in local government 28 regulation, that is, issues that are common across a range 29 of regulatory areas. 30 31 In this introductory presentation, I will outline some 32 of the concerns or issues that have been raised in 33 submissions to us, as well as some suggested 34 recommendations to address these concerns. I will then 35 conclude by listing the questions that we would like to 36 discuss during this session. 37 38 Stakeholders express concern with the level of council 39 skills and resources to undertake their regulatory 40 functions efficiently and effectively. It has been argued 41 that a lack of council regulatory skills and resources can 42 result in delays in responding to applications or providing 43 information, as well as failure to respond to regulatory 44 breaches, poor quality advice and uncertainty to businesses 45 and the community, overly prescriptive approaches and poor 46 use of discretion in regulation decision-making. 47 .4/12/2012 86 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 In relation to interaction between local and state 2 government, stakeholders have identified actual or 3 perceived duplications or overlaps between state government 4 regulators and councils in a number of areas, for example: 5 asbestos management, trees and native vegetation, mobile 6 food vans and food inspections, noise and waste, coastal 7 erosion, road-related activities in the building 8 certification system. 9 10 Some stakeholders have also cited a lack of 11 partnership between state and local government, which can 12 be characterised by poor consultation, a lack of guidance, 13 training templates and standard materials from state to 14 local government, and difficulties with sharing information 15 between the two levels of government. Stakeholders are 16 also concerned about regulatory fees and charges. Councils 17 note that under legislation some fees are capped at levels 18 below cost. On the other hand, other stakeholders believe 19 that some council fees are excessive, for example, fees for 20 pre-DA meetings and also some parking contributions. 21 Private building certifiers argue that councils are 22 undercharging. There are also concerns that some charges 23 appear to be inconsistent across councils which have led 24 some stakeholders to question the basis or rationale for 25 setting these fees. 26 27 Stakeholders note that inconsistencies in regulation 28 and enforcement practices across councils can impact 29 negatively on businesses operating across local government 30 areas, for example, mobile food vendors, builders, 31 supermarkets and transport operators. 32 33 In saying this, there is recognition that some 34 differences may be justified at times, reflecting local 35 conditions and preferences and, therefore, a balance needs 36 to be found between local concerns and the benefits of 37 consistency to business. Some stakeholders are also 38 concerned with the duplication of regulatory registers, 39 forms, policies and guides across all councils in New South 40 Wales. They note that this unnecessarily adds cost to 41 councils, as well as to regulated businesses and the 42 community. 43 44 Potential recommendations put forward in submissions 45 to us to improve council regulatory skills and resources 46 include: 47 Creating regulatory flying squads to address critical .4/12/2012 87 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 staff shortages in areas such as planning, as has recently 2 occurred in Victoria, and even possibly assessment of 3 performance-based standards routes for heavy vehicles; 4 To require state agencies to consider council capacity 5 and capability in the regulation development phase, for 6 example, as part of the regulatory impact statement before 7 delegating new regulatory responsibilities to councils; 8 For state delegated roles to be accompanied by 9 increased support and resources to local councils; 10 To increase sharing and collaborative arrangements 11 between councils, for example, putting a greater emphasis 12 on sharing regulatory resources such as staff through 13 council alliances and regional organisations of councils. 14 15 Suggested ways to improve local government and state 16 government interactions include ensuring a clearer 17 delineation between state and local council regulatory 18 roles and responsibilities, stronger partnerships between 19 state government and local councils across regulatory 20 areas, including better consultation and the provisions of 21 training, materials and guidance from state government to 22 councils, a central unit within state government would 23 assist councils to undertake their regulatory roles. For 24 example, the United Kingdom has a Local Better Regulation 25 Office, which focuses on assisting and reviewing the 26 regulatory activities of local government. It has been 27 suggested that the state develop a model enforcement 28 policy to guide councils in risk-based and graduated 29 enforcement approaches. It has also been argued that state 30 bodies should have set deadlines for responding to 31 referrals from councils. 32 33 As we heard earlier today, the food model is considered 34 leading practice by a number of stakeholders, including 35 the Productivity Commission. Therefore, there is a question 36 as to whether this model should be applied to other areas, 37 for example, public health and environment. The food model 38 is model is characterised by a dedicated local government unit 39 within the Food Authority, which provides guidance to 40 councils and collates and reports information on councils' 41 regulatory performance. 42 43 The model also includes strategic consultation between 44 state government and councils, clear demarcation of roles, 45 minimum manual inspection requirements, standardised 46 compliance tools and the ability of councils to recover the 47 cost of their regulatory action. Suggestions for improving .4/12/2012 88 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 the regulatory efficiency and consistency of councils 2 include: 3 Standardised forms, inspection checklists and 4 templates for orders or directions developed at the state 5 level; 6 Councils' mutual recognition for businesses operating 7 across local government areas, for example, mobile food 8 vans, wastewater management businesses, busking and skip 9 bins, to name just a few areas; 10 Centralised registers, like the companion animals 11 register for all approvals and registrations, for example, 12 skin penetration on the premises; councils to form stronger 13 links with business to aid and inform their regulatory 14 activities, for example, via business reference groups, and 15 creative use of the New South Wales Ombudsman's guidelines 16 for enforcement to train council staff in exercising 17 discretion effectively. 18 19 Other proposals to improve regulatory efficiency and 20 consistency include: 21 Creation of a single act to give a standard suite of 22 enforcement powers to councils and statewide authorisation 23 of council officers; 24 For the small business commissioner to collaborate 25 with the division of local government on its Promoting 26 Better Practice reviews in councils; 27 Broader use of Hunter and Newcastle councils' 28 self-assessment regulatory capacity tools; 29 Broader use of Newcastle Council's smart compliance 30 model, which is a risk-based, process-driven outcomes-based 31 model; 32 Better use of technology in administering and 33 enforcing regulation, for example, electronic applications, 34 guidance materials and portals. 35 36 In terms of improving the way councils recover their 37 regulatory costs and set regulatory fees and charges, 38 stakeholders suggest the following: 39 Councils should be more transparent in explaining how 40 they set fees and charges; councils should set fees to 41 recover the efficient costs of the regulatory activity or 42 services, unless there is a clear public benefit to do 43 otherwise; 44 Capped fees in legislation should be removed where 45 they are set below cost recovery levels; standardised fee 46 structures and criteria for fee discrimination should be 47 developed at a state level; and .4/12/2012 89 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 There should be cost recovery mechanisms available to 2 ensure that councils can recover their costs for 3 administering enforcement regulation, for example, 4 legislative provisions such as those that are currently in 5 the Food and PoEO Act, which enable regulators to recover 6 the cost of their enforcement inspection actions. 7 8 My final slide lists the questions that we would now 9 like to discuss. These questions are: what are the common 10 or systemic reasons for unnecessary regulatory costs of 11 local government compliance and enforcement; what can be 12 done to reduce or eliminate these unnecessary costs, for 13 example, in relation to governance arrangements, the 14 regulatory capacity and capability of councils, the culture 15 and regulatory services within councils and the potential 16 wider application of leading practices; and, what are the 17 best ways to ensure regular assessment of local government 18 regulatory performance? Thank you. I will now hand over 19 to the chair. 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Matt. Yasmin. 22 23 MS KING: Yasmin King, New South Wales Small Business 24 Commissioner. Running through the same theme as I have 25 had so far, a lot of the challenges for councils relate to the 26 inconsistencies of various regulations. We commented on 27 the fact that outdoor licensing requires three different 28 pieces of legislation when it should be one. That is where 29 I think there are unnecessary regulatory costs in place 30 because it is three permits or pieces of legislation that 31 have to be monitored and managed in order to achieve just 32 one thing, and those are some of the fundamental questions 33 that need to be asked. 34 35 I was invited to the Productivity Commission's 36 roundtable with respect to the local government review. 37 One of the things that consistently came up was the desire 38 for people to have someone that they saw was independent of 39 the local issues to be a mediator for challenges where 40 there was considered to be unfair behaviour. This is less 41 heavy than an Ombudsman approach. Often where you have 42 a formal process involved, certainly from the council's 43 perspective, it means they are concerned and become more 44 risk averse because the consequences of doing the wrong 45 thing is more threatening. 46 47 One of the things that the Productivity Commissioner .4/12/2012 90 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 recommended was that small business commissioners around 2 Australia play a role in supporting councils with being an 3 independent party to mediate problems, so it is basically 4 not a legal process, it is more about parties coming 5 together and arriving at a solution that they both agree on 6 with an independent party playing a mediation role. That 7 is certainly something that I would support. I have done 8 this already with a number of councils where there have 9 been ongoing disputes with businesses in council areas, 10 which have taken up an inordinate amount of the council's 11 time and being incredibly consuming for the businesses. We 12 have been able to satisfactorily achieve outcomes in each 13 case. I must hasten to say I am not talking about where 14 somebody does not get the DA approval but they wanted this 15 to be an alternative place to go. It is more about where 16 people perceive they are being treated unfairly. That is 17 an important differentiating point. 18 19 Similarly, one of the things that we are proposing in 20 the small business commission legislation in New South 21 Wales is adopting a much more proactive positive step of 22 developing guidelines for small business friendly councils. 23 I have to say, we intend early in the new year to trial 24 that with metropolitan and a regional council. So far, as 25 a result of all the preliminary discussions I have had with 26 councils on that concept, they have been overwhelmingly 27 supportive because they want to have a better way of 28 engaging with businesses and are looking for assistance in 29 how they can achieve that. 30 31 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Yasmin. I will ask 32 Noel and then, after Noel, Adam. 33 34 MR BAUM: Noel Baum, Director of Policy, Local Government 35 Shires Associations. I think we have heard many, many, 36 many reasons today about what drives unnecessary regulatory 37 costs, but I think we need to possibly lift our vision in 38 terms of what we are talking about here. I think one of 39 the factors that has really been driven home to me today in 40 a different sense - and I have approached it before - is 41 that one of the underlying reasons is that regulations and 42 the entire regulatory system are not designed by the state 43 government in a systemic way. They actually do not think 44 about the burden being placed on council and then 45 consequently on businesses, residents and the community at 46 large by thinking about it as a whole system, and that 47 tends to be what is missing. .4/12/2012 91 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 2 We want to cherry-pick and find little bits and pieces 3 but, in some way, if we are going to get to the bottom of 4 this, we need to lift our line of sight and go back and 5 say, what are the common elements of all the regulatory 6 regimes which are creating the problems, all the 7 interference and duplication, those sorts of things. We 8 have good models about how to move forward and we have 9 stunning examples of how bits get into the road of one 10 another. It is in there somewhere if you look at the 11 system holistically rather than working your way through 12 the individual regulations. 13 14 In terms of the potential recommendations, I think 15 there is merit in virtually every single one of them from 16 page 5 to 8, probably with a big question mark against 17 centralised registers. You have to think very carefully 18 about what you are trying to register and why. I do not 19 think that one size fits all. The other thing I have heard 20 many, many times over the years, but it never comes through 21 properly in regulatory systems, is how you equip and 22 empower staff to make discretionary decisions in a way that 23 works for them and for their councils and their 24 communities. There is a lot of work that still needs to be 25 done there. 26 27 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Noel. Adam. 28 29 MR GILLIGAN: Adam Gilligan, Compliance Manager at 30 Newcastle City Council. Firstly, picking up on one of 31 Noel's points about the holistic approach, I think it is 32 worth noting that recommendations have been made for a 33 penalty notice oversight agency in New South Wales, because 34 it has been recognised that each agency develops its own 35 infringement notices and penalty amounts in isolation from 36 everyone else. We have the situation where you get fined 37 more for speeding on a train station platform than you do 38 for running a red light. That was the examples that was 39 given. No-one is stopping to see what each agency is doing 40 in isolation. That is a very good point. 41 42 What I want to speak about in particular is the couple 43 of items that were referenced as Hunter and Newcastle 44 initiatives. The first is the concept of smart compliance, 45 which is something that we have developed out of some work 46 done by the US CPA. It is a model that we try to apply to 47 all of our compliance work. It is a framework for how we .4/12/2012 92 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 decide what we are regulating and how we go about 2 regulating it. 3 4 It is a five-step process. The first step is to find 5 and address significant problems. We use data to work out 6 what matters to us in a regulatory sense. We are not 7 applying a consistent regulatory approach to every issue; 8 we are looking at those that are more important from the 9 community demand perspective. We use that data to make 10 strategic decisions. In the case of food premises, we look 11 at our data; we know what the key issues are on those food 12 premises and we focus our attention on those key issues, 13 whether that be can washing or cross-contamination. 14 15 The next step is about using appropriate tools. We 16 have heard some discussions about the swinging pendulum 17 that we face in local government between education and 18 enforcement. It is often seen as a pendulum. We have been 19 through an election and many of us will have that pendulum 20 swinging from one direction to the other as a result of 21 changes in electorate representatives. What we try to 22 focus on is that it is about using appropriate tools or the 23 appropriate mix of tools to get the right outcomes. The 24 sorts of tools that we talk about is compliance assistance, 25 so that is about giving people brochures, fact sheets, 26 guidance in how to comply. It is about incentives. 27 28 Again, the food model is good here. There is an 29 incentive in terms of if you comply the first time, you 30 won't get a reinspection fee. That is an incentive to do 31 the right thing. Scores on doors is an incentive to do the 32 right thing. Then there is compliance monitoring. That is 33 getting in and doing inspections, audits, and complaints 34 response, then enforcement in terms of criminal and civil, 35 things like name and shame. They are all tools just like 36 education that you are using in the mix. 37 38 The fourth step in our smart compliance model is to 39 assess the effectiveness of all of that. You have worked 40 out what you want to focus on; you have used those tools. 41 Is it working and what is the data now telling us about 42 compliance outcomes? Then the program can be adjusted and 43 the outcomes communicated to the industry, to the 44 community, and, of course, to your own organisation, and 45 you complete the loop. That is what smart compliance is 46 about for us. We hope that it means we are going about 47 working in a systemic way that minimises the regulatory .4/12/2012 93 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 burden that we impose on our community. 2 3 The second thing that was mentioned is a tool we have 4 developed with Hunter councils, the local regional 5 organisation of councils, and it is a self-assessment tool 6 of our organisation's regulatory capacity. It is about 7 capacity and performance, but a particular focus on 8 capacity and performance to deliver regulatory services. 9 It is a tool that is available from Hunter councils, but it 10 allows us to self-assess how we are travelling and to look 11 at things such as do we have a complaints handling system 12 that prioritises complaints based on risk? Do we have 13 tools to ensure that those complaints are tracked through a 14 case management system, and a whole range of other factors 15 that go into doing good regulatory work. You have 16 delegations in place, training in place, policies and 17 procedures, et cetera. It is an interactive tool that can be 18 adjusted to suit individual needs and particular regulatory 19 issues that are required to be managed. We think it is 20 something that could have a wider application. 21 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Michael. 23 24 MR BUCKLEY: Michael Buckley from the Housing Industry 25 Association. I will just give you a little picture of our 26 membership. Our membership largely comprises the smaller 27 builder who goes out every day and is part of the process 28 of building a free-standing house or something larger. 29 Often I get comments back that there are certain ways that 30 they don't really deal with council on a day-to-day basis, 31 that is left to the certifier or, in fact, the applicant 32 who may well be the owner. 33 34 On many occasions, they have had to go up to council. 35 Some of the feedback that I have been getting up front is 36 generally the quality of advice, as we have seen from the 37 slides, and consistency of advice. It seems that all they 38 want is a bit of clarity, some advice, some solutions. 39 Often, if it is a private certifier, they will be told to 40 have a talk to the private certifier. If it is council, in 41 some respects the response isn't quite forthcoming until 42 some day or two days later. Certainly quality advice is 43 what they are after. 44 45 The other thing is the pre-DA process. Prior to the 46 Complying development regime, the simplest way was to roll 47 up to council any time of the day and you were able to talk .4/12/2012 94 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 to a planner or a building surveyor about a problem or a 2 solution to a problem. Generally you would get that free 3 of charge and you would be on your merry way. Now you pay 4 for a pre-DA and it varies from council to council. Most 5 people don't have a problem paying for a pre-DA, but it is 6 the quality of the advice that you get back. After sitting 7 down with some councils, you are going through, often, a 8 project that is not consistent with a DCP, but you can make 9 a case for it. 10 11 This generic DCP hasn't really addressed the issue or 12 the problem. You sit and explain it to them; they 13 understand it; you document it. When you get it back, 14 there are five pages of reciting clauses within the DCP 15 that you don't comply. At the end of the day, there is no 16 solution. It is hard to fix the problem: take the floor off, even 17 though the top floor can't be seen from the road, but you 18 can have plant equipment on the sixth storey, but you can't 19 have residential. You have demonstrated that one would 20 hardly know from the other side of the street, so there's 21 the money. Try to explain that to a client or to the 22 everyday person. It comes up again. It is the duplication 23 of all the guides and forms that are often there. A 24 builder can roll up to one council and think, "This is 25 good. I can understand this now." The builder goes to the 26 next council and it is a different game again. It is grey 27 hair. 28 29 Better consultation and training is a benefit. 30 Councils have improved their regime to comply with 31 development since it has been in place. It has been in 32 place for some time, but those private certifiers who are 33 out there in the private industry are those that came from 34 council and who decided to make a career change. They are 35 often the people who can tell you up front what are the 36 problems with the regulatory sources or the compliance, on 37 how it can be done. They can't make the decision, yes, 38 we'll let this go through, because if it doesn't fit the 39 box it is outside of our hands and it is back to council. 40 The certifiers are a good source of that information for 41 all of this. 42 43 Winding up, from the state level, we do agree that to 44 develop a model from the top that not every council is the 45 same, but to enforce a guide or a policy is pretty much the 46 same objective at the end of the day. It applies to all 47 councils and private certifiers. If the basics can be put .4/12/2012 95 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 in place, there is room to change how things may need to be 2 from council to council. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Michael. I will ask Bob and, 5 after that, Corin and Michael. 6 7 MR WHEELDON: Hello. Bob Wheeldon from Wentworth 8 Shire Council in far western New South Wales. My comments 9 will be a little bit more orientated around remote and regional 10 councils, but they may have relevance to other council 11 areas as well. 12 13 Regarding what we would like to see from IPART, one is 14 a recommendation relating to different government 15 departments, instrumentalities having consistent boundaries 16 and regional hubs that they work off. In terms of the 17 different government departments we deal with, they have 18 vastly different boundaries. We are probably one of the 19 areas affected by this most because we are on the Murray 20 River and also in the Far West. We get shoved in the 21 western region for some areas and then a little area on the 22 Murray River for other things. If you say, "Give this to 23 IPART", we deal with Broken Hill for health and police; we 24 deal with Dubbo for planning schools and western lands; we 25 deal with Wagga for our Roads and Maritime Services; we 26 deal with Albury for Regional Development Australia; 27 Deniliquin for water and our CMA; we have to deal with 28 Sydney for all those things. It gets worse: decks in 29 Griffith. I doubt any other area would have quite as 30 ridiculous a situation. 31 32 All those departments and organisations made logical 33 decisions to base their head offices for our area in those 34 locations. Going back to what Noel said, there was no 35 system to it. This is something that IPART could 36 realistically identify, that governments must look to the 37 broader system and the effect that that has on both 38 councils and individuals. For example, this is incredibly 39 debilitating for someone who wants to set up a vineyard. 40 For instance, if the organisations were having troubles, 41 they would have to go to Dubbo, Griffith or Deniliquin. 42 That is not viable and the state cannot operate viably in 43 our area and people go elsewhere. 44 45 I think a good phrase for it is "Government within 46 reach". I don't think it is too much to ask of this state 47 that if they wish to regulate you, that it should be within .4/12/2012 96 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 reach. The good things that that brings out is that it 2 becomes fair government, affordable government, and you are 3 also likely to have better decisions because the various 4 people who are making the decisions will hopefully have 5 some knowledge of the area, or at least be close enough to 6 travel to you occasionally. 7 8 I would like to see IPART recommend that there be 9 common regional boundaries for any of the different 10 government regulations and also that there be a hub for 11 each area so we shouldn't have to go to all these places. 12 I am not saying this is separate to whatever the regulation 13 is, but put it in one place. It is quite dangerous, from 14 an OH&S point of view, and numerous other reasons. 15 16 The other thing which is more general under regulatory 17 burden is that we have numerous consultations and 18 submissions at the local government level. In addition, we 19 have the local government departments put in very extensive 20 community strategic planning requirements and integrated 21 reporting systems. They are great ideas if you are a 22 massive council, but it requires several people full-time 23 to be doing these things. 24 25 Regarding consultations and submissions, they can be 26 coming from virtually every department. It is great that 27 government has moved towards giving us a say, rather than 28 just making decisions. IPART is an incredible body. There 29 is a good chance that some of the things we say today will 30 get into policy. There are many organisations where it is 31 very unlikely that anything you say that is right, 32 whatever, will turn into anything apart from wall paper. 33 It is incredibly offensive to all of us let alone the 34 citizens who don't have the time or who have the good sense 35 not to turn up to these things to require this. 36 37 If IPART puts some time into this to make a system of 38 consultations and submissions, maybe six-monthly for a 39 community, it might achieve the goals that it has been set 40 up to do, but also to be in some way fair. How can a small 41 business attend all these things? Council could be doing 42 consultations and submissions full-time without any 43 reference at all to dogs and cats or planning. They are my 44 two comments. Thank you. 45 46 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bob. Corin. 47 .4/12/2012 97 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 MS MOFFATT: Corin Moffat from the Division of Local 2 Government. The more I listen today, there is a 3 fundamental question for IPART in doing this review, which 4 is where do we want to be on this spectrum of autonomous 5 local government through to local administration in terms 6 of local government's role in regulation? We need to 7 identify where there is legitimate local variation versus 8 simply inefficient delivery of services. I think that is 9 an interesting tension to explore through this piece of 10 work. 11 12 There is a real opportunity to support councils in 13 their role through sharing staff and through providing 14 tools to help them do their job more effectively, but that 15 won't necessarily address all of the issues of consistency. 16 You still may get variation in fees and charges where they 17 are a reflection of a legitimate local political decision 18 to either subsidise or pursue a model of funding that sees 19 the user pay, and that might be to achieve a particular 20 local outcome that is appropriate for that area. There are 21 things we can do, but they won't necessarily address all 22 the consistency issues. 23 24 Equally, model policies can be a useful tool to help 25 councils be more effective in this space. Again, our 26 experience of using those does not necessarily mean you get 27 consistency. What you can get is 152 variations of a model 28 policy. We need to be careful about where we use those 29 tools and the way that then translates into better delivery 30 of local regulation. 31 32 There is potential for the Promoting Better Practice 33 program to identify better practice in relation to 34 regulatory services. Having said that, I guess I would be 35 slightly anxious about seeing the Promoting Better Practice 36 program as something that we could make all things to all 37 people. At the moment, it focuses very much on governance, 38 strategic planning and financial capacity of councils. 39 I suppose they are things that mean all forms of service 40 delivery, whether that is regulatory services or other 41 services operate effectively. It is a danger that you try 42 to pile too much on to a program that doesn't achieve 43 anything for anybody. 44 45 It is worth exploring a range of models for how we 46 build capacity. Adam talked about the Food Authority 47 earlier today and certainly there were a few key areas that .4/12/2012 98 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 we heard from the EPA and others where it might be useful 2 to explore that model. I would be interested in that. 3 Equally, I think the UK's LBRO is a model that is worth 4 looking at. Having said that, in my experience, they got a 5 lot of money to deliver what they were set up to do and 6 they didn't last very long, so it is worth reflecting on 7 what happened there. 8 9 My understanding of their purpose was more to set up 10 the Principal Authority Scheme which has been flagged as an 11 option to consider where businesses can connect to a 12 particular authority rather than having to work with a 13 number, and I think that has worked successfully, but has 14 worked on a voluntary basis. That is something definitely 15 worth looking at. 16 17 Finally, what also existed in the UK was another model 18 of support to councils to build capacity and regulatory 19 services in the form of government regulation, which was 20 funded by holding back a small portion of council funding 21 in order to set up a capacity building agency around 22 regulatory services. There is a debate for us to have 23 around who pays to build the capacity of local government 24 in this area and who best can serve that role? Is it the 25 sector itself that can be playing this role or is it 26 something that the state should do on behalf of local 27 government? 28 29 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Corin. Next, I will 30 call on Michael. Afterwards, David, Paul and Roman. 31 32 MR RYAN: My name is Michael Ryan, Sutherland Shire 33 Council. One of the themes we keep coming back to, and 34 Michael has highlighted it again, there is a lack of 35 uniformity. In my role, I deal with a lot of builders and 36 small businesses. I want to give a very basic example 37 about uniformity. Once you have your development 38 application and construction certificate and you have 39 appointed your PCA and you are off building, there are 40 still a number of other permits or licences you have to 41 obtain. You might need a skip bin, and skip bins is 42 probably the best example. 43 44 Each council has a different skip bin policy. A 45 person who provides a skip bin generally provides a skip 46 bin over 20 or 30 Sydney council areas, so there shouldn't 47 be a situation where a council has a different policy or a .4/12/2012 99 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 fee on a skip bin. That builder will come up to you and 2 ask, "What is the process to get a road opening permit to 3 connect to a sewer or to a water supply?" It is something 4 he has done 100 times, but because he was worked in 30 5 different councils, there are 30 different procedures. One 6 solution to this is the e-solutions, to make these online 7 applications and for the state government to set standard 8 fees for these as well. That is one of the issues. 9 10 The other issue that keeps being brought up is 11 discretionary decision-making. One of the areas I am in 12 charge of is building compliance. It is not the most 13 glamorous job in the world. It is a very difficult job and 14 it is very difficult to attract good staff. To make 15 decisions, you need good staff. To get good staff, they 16 need good training. There is a training gap in a lot of 17 areas around local government roles. One example is that 18 councils at the moment are gearing up for the upcoming 19 changes to pool fencing. You will not be able to employ a 20 building surveyor to inspect pool fencing on a full-time 21 basis. 22 23 Currently Sutherland Shire Council has 22,000 pools. Each 24 year 1,000 of those changes hands. In a year and a half, 25 we will be inspecting from 3,000 pools to 1,300 pools. We 26 are thinking how do we attract someone to undertake pool 27 inspections? Anyone who has done tertiary qualifications 28 will not want to spend the whole day going from one pool to 29 the next looking at pool fences, but where do you get the staff 30 from? There is a one-day course on pool fencing that 31 doesn't really cover what we need, but there are no other 32 courses. This is one example of a skills gap. We have to 33 work out how to meet the demand. In 14 to 15 months, this 34 needs to be satisfied because that is when council will 35 have to find the resources to undertake that role. 36 37 A final thing about discretionary decisions is that, 38 within local government, there is a risk averse 39 culture. We talked before that cultural change must happen 40 from the top down. The top of the local government tree 41 has elective representatives. I feel if we are going to 42 create change, then we should be working at that level, 43 engaging them as well as the staff. Thank you. 44 45 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Michael. Dave. 46 47 MR DAY: David Day from Wollongong City Council. Michael .4/12/2012 100 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 made some really good points. We do similar work but at 2 different councils. The new legislation is obviously going 3 to be difficult for us as well. I think Michael split the 4 training side of it into two. One was for the electorate 5 representatives and the understanding of policy and the 6 discretionary decisions that we have to make on a daily 7 basis. I think that is really important. 8 9 The key bit is that, in enforcement, we will get a 10 phone call that it is coming down through the council that 11 you have upset someone, you have done something wrong 12 over here and we don't want to do that, but then our policy 13 says we should. The next day you can have a phone call with 14 the opposite scenario, saying, "Why aren't you doing 15 something about this?" That is difficult for us. 16 17 Michael summed up training from a council point of 18 view really well. Generally people don't leave school and 19 say, "I am going to go to university to get a degree in 20 compliance", because there isn't one. Unfortunately, with 21 the complexities of the legislation that we have now, 22 either building or environmental compliance officers need 23 to have qualifications in planning, or law, or environment, 24 or something like that. We are really missing those skill 25 levels. Planners don't want to do full-time enforcement 26 work, so there is a big gap for any enlargement enforcement 27 area. We have 50 staff in our enforcement division and 28 that doesn't cover the enforcement stuff that we do in 29 council, but trying to find those skilled people - swimming 30 pools, what are we going to do with swimming pools? How 31 are we going to get building surveyors to come over 32 full-time and do swimming pools? I am not sure what the 33 answer is. 34 35 The hard bit is that the legislation is in. It is 36 happening. It is done and we have to start getting 37 prepared for that. What mechanisms were there when the 38 legislation was being discussed? I know that most councils 39 made submissions at the time. We said we are going to need 40 some sort of cost recovery or something, but there is the 41 component about the building and skills and qualifications 42 as well, which is a problem. 43 44 On another note, Corin made a good point that as far 45 as policy, you can't write a policy that will work for all 46 organisations, and I appreciate that. I think there is a 47 lot of stuff that we can use on the basis that all councils .4/12/2012 101 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 can use. It does not necessarily have to be an LEP 2 template, but things like notices and orders, all of those 3 legislative things. Conditions of consent for planners, 4 every council has their own conditions of consent that they 5 apply on the consent, and the government from the housing 6 industry, builders are probably saying, "This is similar to 7 what this council told me, but it is slightly different; 8 the words are a little bit different." 9 10 Most councils have 600 or 700 conditions that they can 11 choose from, and tick a box to put into the system. You 12 only have to tick the one above or the one below that you 13 want and it doesn't make sense. As an enforcement officer, 14 it is really difficult. Condition 5 says, "These trees 15 must remain." I get to condition 15 and it says all the 16 trees must go. No wonder the people building or trying to 17 understand the consents make it difficult as well. 18 19 There is some framework that we can use. Conditions 20 of consent, where we have a grouping of standard conditions 21 of consent that can go into that. Waste management plans. 22 I have said previously if I am having trouble teaching my 23 guys how to interpret the consent, the people out there 24 have absolutely no idea. No wonder they don't read them. 25 We turn up and say, "Have you complied with condition 14?" 26 "I have got my approval. It says it on the front. I don't 27 read the rest of it because it doesn't make sense." 28 29 Councils spend an awful lot of money on lawyers and 30 legal advice, getting interpretations to make sure their notices 31 and orders are correct. We use standard conditions for 32 reasons and requirements in our orders, so we have a 33 document. All of my guys know that if they select number 4 34 and number 6, they make sense and it is enforceable if we 35 have to go to court later on. 36 37 There are an awful lot of councils and good councils 38 that are continuing to reinvent the wheel. There must be 39 ways for particularly big councils such as Wollongong or 40 Sutherland to use those resources to help the smaller 41 councils that don't have the resources and the legal 42 background. We have an in-house lawyer and a whole panel 43 of lawyers as well. 44 45 How do we do that? The Food Authority makes it work 46 with their liaison groups. My food health officers go with 47 the groups and they meet with all the southern councils as .4/12/2012 102 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 well and they share ideas: this form is good; this form 2 doesn't work; can we do that; how does that work? That 3 concept seems to work. There must be a way that we can 4 expand that concept to work for other areas in local 5 government as well, otherwise we are reinventing the wheel 6 and spending more money. While that may not be red tape as 7 such, it is a cost and a burden on council and the 8 community. 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks very much, Dave. Paul. 11 12 MR SEAGE: Paul Seage from Caltex. The issue of 13 regulatory burdens is an important one for all businesses, 14 but there is a key word on the screen and that is 15 "unnecessary". What the business doesn't want is to pay 16 for regulatory activities if they actually happen. Where 17 we get distressed is when there is rework, delay or churn. 18 There are a number of causes for that, but one of the key 19 ones is the interaction between the regulatory design and 20 the implementation process. 21 22 I really believe that the state body generally should 23 consider the capability of the organisations that are going 24 to enforce those regulations before delegating them. In 25 fact, even before designing them, if they get planning, 26 pass regulation, say, on UPSS to councils, which we 27 certainly don't support, then they should be considering 28 that during the design stage to make sure that the 29 regulations are easily understood and digestible by the 30 limited resources available to those bodies. 31 32 It is an issue of competence and capability. Smaller 33 councils who might have one environmental officer, it is 34 very unfair of the state government to believe that they 35 can enforce a huge range of environmental regulations, 36 which is extraordinarily complex. In rolling out the 37 regulation, this is a resource intensive exercise, so I can 38 understand the state bodies shying away from it, but if 39 they are going to push for the councils, they really have 40 to work hard at it and use a lot of resources. What's 41 more, if it is risk-based or policy-type regulation, they 42 need it to supply extensive support so the councils have 43 somebody to turn to, somebody to get information from so 44 they can respond to businesses promptly. 45 46 People often throw training up there as the answer. 47 One-off training is not the answer. We have seen it before .4/12/2012 103 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 with a flurry of regulation and a flurry of training, but 2 it is transient. What happens if people move on, new folks 3 come in, they haven't had the training, they can't get the 4 training. Also, for regulations that are less often 5 enforced that do not directly involve that council a lot, 6 those skills are lost. Unless they are utilised, skills 7 are lost. Once again, there is a lot of merit in having a 8 single regulator for a lot of regulation. Capability can 9 develop organically. As generations work and pass through 10 that organisation, they can pick up skills without 11 requiring external training. Where it is complex, 12 centralise is certainly our philosophy. 13 14 For those concerned about the community losing touch 15 or losing impact over some of this legislation, 16 consideration could be given to notification or referral 17 powers to councils, so if people in council areas or 18 council officers themselves have problems, they can refer 19 it to the relevant state agency to get a response. We 20 believe it is better than trying to enforce something that 21 you don't understand. We think the preliminary 22 recommendations through the presentation are positive and 23 we endorse those. Thank you. 24 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Paul. Roman. 26 27 MR WERESZCZYNSKI: Roman Wereszczynski, from Randwick 28 Council. The other council officers pretty much covered 29 everything that I could think of, but just to go through a 30 couple of points, one was what Noel mentioned the need for 31 some form of regulatory impact assessment prior to the 32 introduction of any new legislation. It would help if that 33 was also carried out with some of the existing legislation. 34 35 Whilst IPART has been seeking comments from councils 36 and the community, there have been a number of legislative 37 changes, particularly the swimming pools that have been 38 referred to, and I will be pulling what hair I have left 39 out in the next 12 months or so, trying to work out how we 40 are going to implement those provisions, the resources 41 required and the costs to the council. 42 43 New boarding house legislation: the proposed 44 expansion of the Codes SEPP is pretty astronomical. A 45 recent circular that was very surprising and a perfect 46 example of bureaucracy going mad was in relation to awning 47 safety and suggesting that council implement all sorts of .4/12/2012 104 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 programs to inspect awnings and take regulatory action; the 2 wood fire smoke reduction program; the previous changes to 3 the UPSS regime, which will be transferred to councils; 4 access to premises standards is a requirement through the 5 building code which obviously is very positive and 6 beneficial for the community and people with disabilities, 7 but the requirement is extremely onerous, and we know at 8 the moment some builders/developers have decided to go 9 ahead with their development and bypass the approval 10 process because the requirements are too onerous. 11 12 The other area I was going to touch on was the 13 duplication of approvals and concurrences in relation to 14 Crown land and the Crown land that council has care and 15 control of. An area of cost recovery that I wanted to 16 mention was the requirements in the Act and the Regulations 17 in relation to fire safety and the submission of fire 18 safety certificates and fire safety statements which, 19 depending on who you listen to, is an area that councils 20 are currently unable to charge for, but the resources are 21 astronomical and the amount of regulatory action and the 22 conflict that those provisions create is quite substantial. 23 24 I agree with the presentation of what the others have 25 said regarding the culture within local government. It is 26 a difficult and long-term process to try to develop a more 27 positive, helpful, co-operative culture within local 28 government in all of the professions, and to look at 29 developing solutions, rather than coming up with problems 30 and grief for the customers. In my area, I like to take 31 appropriate regulatory action and then move on and give 32 possible solutions to people who have done the right thing 33 and hopefully they have learned their lesson, but there 34 needs to be a solution one way or the other, unless it was 35 really, really bad, of course. 36 37 The other area was the secondary approvals that were 38 mentioned. The DA consent often contends many, many 39 other requirements for permits, approvals, certificates, reports, 40 waste management, acoustic, et cetera, to be provided, and 41 they are often the things that might not get picked up in 42 this sort of review because they are hidden away in the 43 conditions of consent, but can have a significant impact 44 upon the poor person who is wanting to implement their 45 development, whether it is a dwelling house or a business. 46 Thank you. 47 .4/12/2012 105 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I was going to ask Luke and 2 then Peter. 3 4 MR AITKEN: Luke Aitken from the New South Wales 5 Business Chamber. I will start off with the points that Corin 6 and David both made. I completely agree that there are issues 7 around the consistency of regulation. An expression that 8 we have heard a lot today is one size doesn't fit all, and 9 I think that actually stops the discussion about where 10 commonalities lie and where local government can actually 11 utilise similar or the same provisions on an issue. 12 Obviously we have all been discussing food regulation. 13 That seems to operate well. We need to look at more 14 opportunities for that to happen across the board. 15 16 One of the big challenges is moving forward, and we 17 have had a recent review by the Auditor-General into the 18 Division of Local Government and looking at its monitoring 19 functions. We have had a bit of discussion about promoting 20 better practice review, which is a good process. I think 21 it is somewhat unrealistic at the moment with a department 22 of 64 people to effectively monitor 152 councils, and I 23 think with the discussion going on with the Local 24 Government Act review looking at the function of the 25 division and seeing what additional roles or legislative 26 empowerment it might have to better monitor councils' 27 services delivery and other functions. As well, there may 28 be future opportunity to change with the peak association, 29 so with the LGSA playing a larger role in driving policy 30 forward for councils, moving away from the department 31 having so much regulation over councils and towards a more 32 self-regulatory approach could be effective and where 33 councils share their best practices. 34 35 Obviously the big issue that hasn't been discussed is 36 the number of councils that we have in this state. Whether 37 it is done via amalgamation or consolidation of services, 38 it is obvious that maintaining the status quo isn't going 39 to work into the future. We are obviously having a big 40 discussion about that at the moment with the Local 41 Government Boundaries Commission looking at a range of 42 models, but we do need to start thinking about how we can 43 deliver services on a larger scale. 44 45 The points that were made from Wentworth Council that 46 the challenges for some of our rural councils in terms of 47 the alignment of services, that is one of the big drivers .4/12/2012 106 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 that should be around looking towards amalgamation or 2 consolidation is getting better state services and better 3 alignment so there is place-based solutions to things. On 4 the current scale, the state government simply couldn't do 5 some of these functions with local government and align 6 policy. If we start to scale up, we can take those 7 opportunities and reduce a lot of the unnecessary 8 regulatory costs. 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Luke. Peter. 11 12 MR SUTHERLAND: Peter Sutherland, New South Wales Food 13 Authority. I am not going to add too much more to what I 14 added in session 2. From the authority's point of view, it 15 is heartening that the model that we have for partnership 16 with local government has been well accepted and we think 17 it's working well. The formal evaluation we have just 18 completed bore that out as well. We are happy with the 19 model that we have. In saying that, we don't think that 20 the current regulatory system is burdensome on council or 21 the community. We think that it's about the right place, 22 and those costs are needed to protect the community from 23 food-borne illness and those things. We don't think that 24 it is imposing an unnecessary cost. 25 26 Where we go to from now, and the talk around the table 27 in the room is around consistency, consistency of 28 inspection, consistency of interpretation within the food 29 regulatory system. There are 152 councils. There are 30 about 450 individuals that make up the 150 full-time 31 equivalence that do the food inspections there, so to get 32 everyone to think robot-like is impossible. You are always 33 going to have that consistency problem, but through having 34 a centralised area that you can go to to look at templates, 35 to look at inspection formats, to try to assist with 36 training and support the assistance material that will help 37 inform the decisions in the field, to have a graduated 38 enforcement guideline in place so that individuals can have 39 a look at the circumstance they are in and then make 40 appropriate decisions is a good way towards consistency and 41 we will keep on trying to support that. That is about all 42 I can add. 43 44 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Peter. Anybody 45 around the table with any additional comments? Adam. 46 47 MR GILLIGAN: I might just add to some of Michael Ryan's .4/12/2012 107 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 comments. He mentioned the secondary approvals, the skip 2 bins, the road open permits. There is a real need for 3 consistency, but I think we can go a step further with some 4 of those. It goes back to something Yasmin said earlier 5 that we get tied to those revenue schemes. We get $30,000 6 a year from skip bins. We don't need to provide them. If we 7 put simple guidelines in place and if we register the 8 companies that provide them and give them an appropriate 9 level of training where we want things to go, I am not sure 10 we need to be handling individual applications and so 11 forth. A good part of that discussion to have is not only 12 streamline the process, but do we need the process in the 13 first place? There are a lot of things in section 68 of 14 the Local Government Act that are from the 1919 Act that we 15 no longer need to look at it. 16 17 MR BAUM: We are supposed to get rid of them. 18 19 MR GILLIGAN: And someone forgot. The Ombudsman's 20 enforcement guidelines for councils is an example of a 21 guideline tool that is useful for us and gives a framework 22 that we can all use. In terms of training, some agencies 23 do this well: making sure that their enforcement staff 24 have certificates of investigation for officers and 25 diplomas in investigation for supervisors. That can sit 26 separate to the professional qualifications that might be 27 needed in building, planning or environment as a baseline 28 of skills if you are applying those professional skills to 29 a regulatory body. 30 31 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Adam. Anybody else? 32 33 MS KING: Particularly on that issue of the skip bins, 34 there are examples now where councils are trialling 35 removing those things. Waverley Council, for example, has 36 no permit process for skip bins. Marrickville Council has 37 just removed all of its licence fees for outdoor dining. 38 In the case of the Marrickville Council, that is because 39 the revenue stream they received was very small, but they 40 have seen a positive impact on businesses. So I think 41 there are now some examples of where those changes have 42 occurred to take learnings from that. 43 44 The other thing is that sometimes a lot of the process 45 where there is a revenue stream, we still forget the cost 46 benefit analysis. Sometimes the actual cost of getting 47 that revenue stream outweighs the net benefit. Some of .4/12/2012 108 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 that has been lost again, because we are focused on the 2 process, not the outcome. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Yasmin. Anything else around 5 the table? Questions or comments from the floor? Anybody 6 apart from Greg? Over here and then Greg. 7 8 MR FISHER: My name is Hayden Fisher from the Centre For 9 International Economics. One thing that occurred to me 10 that might help to improve the regulatory performance of 11 councils is more scrutiny of their performance through 12 increased transparency. One approach to that might be to 13 measure and rank the effectiveness of each council as a 14 regulator across each of the regulatory frameworks. That 15 is not necessarily easy to do, but measuring the quality of 16 regulatory regimes has been done in various other contexts 17 and one example of that is the World Bank's doing business 18 index. That would involve developing a series of 19 indicators of how effectively the council is administering 20 the various regulatory regimes, so those indicators might 21 be based on data such as approval times. 22 23 They could also be based on a survey of perceptions of 24 regulated businesses, then it would involve compiling them 25 in some way and then ranking them across councils. In our 26 experience that helps councils identify areas of weakness 27 and also it provides an incentive for them to improve their 28 performance. It also helps councils identify what is best 29 practice, because, in many cases, councils would not be 30 aware of what other councils are doing, so they are not 31 quite sure what present practice is. That is one 32 suggestion that might help. 33 34 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Hayden. Greg. 35 36 MR BLOOMFIELD: Greg Bloomfield, Fair Go. We have talked 37 about decisions being made top down. I think there is 38 another layer to add on that might help, and that is the 39 community. I suggest that councils facilitate the community 40 consultation: decide what it wants done and then communicate 41 that properly with council. That then means that 42 councillors have a better idea of what they should be doing 43 and that can then flow through to the departmental staff. 44 45 In the same vein, it would pay for councils to 46 facilitate business community developer discussions in 47 early stages so that where the community has a concern over .4/12/2012 109 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 some business or development-related issue, they can sit 2 down around the table and thrash it out a little bit. My 3 experience over 25 years of running consultations is that 4 mostly they can sort it out quite easily with a couple of 5 concessions on either side. 6 7 As far as the problems that were raised by Wentworth on 8 travelling backwards and forwards across the state, which 9 is a great way to spend your time, I would think that an 10 increased use of online communications would be an added 11 advantage, because I can sit in Sydney or out in the bush 12 using a satellite service and I can communicate with every 13 Parliament in Australia effectively. I think the online 14 communications are a good opportunity, but also in the vein 15 of what you said, I think regional hubs developed by the 16 state government, maybe federal government, around the 17 state would make it easier and allow the physical contact 18 that you are talking about, which is what we have got here, 19 which is just as important as online communication. 20 21 The state and federal governments have proved over the 22 quarter century that Fair Go has operated to be far better 23 at dealing with the community and its individual issues on 24 any issue at all than councils have been. When we talk to 25 people who have a problem at council level, we say, "Go 26 into state parliament. You will solve it infinitely 27 quicker there." Therefore, I would say that councils 28 should focus more on caring for the community. I don't 29 mean pandering to them, but caring for them, because that 30 might produce a better result for everybody. Again, I 31 would say do only what the community wants. Chartered 32 accountants are a bit funny about this, but streamline to 33 minimise the costs and time involved in that process and I 34 am sure tremendous improvements can be made in the way 35 services are delivered. That would suit the business 36 community well and cut the red tape out. 37 38 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Greg. Anybody 39 from the councils who would like to make a comment? Adam. 40 41 MR GILLIGAN: I would have to challenge the view that 42 councils are not good at that community liaison. There are 43 plenty of examples where we do it better than state 44 government. One recent experience to me was watching the 45 Orica incident unfold in Newcastle last year. The EPA 46 acknowledges that they can learn a lot from local 47 government on how to better engage with community and .4/12/2012 110 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 stakeholders. They have now developed a community 2 consultation forum to help develop that, which takes more 3 of a council-style approach to how they liaise with the 4 community. It is a two-way street. There are areas where 5 we can do better, but the state and federal government can 6 do better as well. 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Adam. Luke. 9 10 MR AITKEN: Can I make a comment? It is not really to 11 what was discussed, but the issue of online and one of the 12 big challenges that I get feedback on from members across 13 the state is around council web sites. There are 152 14 councils developing their own web sites, so there is no way 15 in the world you can find the same thing on one web site 16 and the other, so if that is an opportunity for some sort 17 of template approach to building web sites, that would be 18 very much welcomed. 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Luke. Yes, Lew. 21 22 MR HIRD: Lew Hird, Blue Mountains, Lithgow and Oberon 23 Tourism. I think the element in the room here to some extent 24 is the issue of council amalgamations in terms of the 25 regulatory environment and providing personnel who have 26 sufficient expertise in various areas of environment and 27 other regulation. With 152 councils, and we have got a 28 plethora of forms, pro formas, regulatory environments, to 29 some extent an interpretation of those and what have you, 30 so some context whereby we could reduce the number of 31 councils, we pool the resources, and we can have better 32 liaison between councils throughout the state in terms of 33 consistency. I wonder whether, in fact, we look at that in 34 totality in terms of this regulatory environment and some 35 of the planning issues we have talked about. 36 37 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Lew. Other questions? 38 39 MS GRIFFIN: Cathy Griffin. Thanks very much again for 40 the opportunity. I would like to put in a word for the 41 council staff, that's the general managers through to those 42 who are on the customer service desks. They have to 43 exercise the wisdom of Solomon and, these days, the 44 technical knowledge that Solomon requires as well to know 45 everything, and to actually do what the community wants 46 them to do and do also what everyone else wants them to do. 47 .4/12/2012 111 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 We have heard many times today that one size fits all 2 and one size doesn't fit all. It is somewhat ironic to 3 hear, for me personally, from the gentlemen from Coles - I 4 am not sure if he is still here - but it applies also to 5 the people from Woolworths. They have a one size fits all 6 model. We see it around Australia and New South Wales. 7 They come to communities and they want to put their one 8 size fits all supermarket, liquor outlet, petrol station - 9 whatever it is - in that community, and communities are 10 diverse. We have many diverse communities across New 11 South Wales. Our councils are diverse. The councils are 12 trying really hard on behalf of those communities to say, "We 13 don't want the supermarket that is exactly the same as they 14 have down the road in the metropolitan areas." That has to 15 be acknowledged here. Large businesses, and in particular 16 those two, Wesfarmers and Woolworths Limited, need to take 17 on board that one size does not fit all in our context of 18 what we are trying to do with our communities. Once again, 19 I acknowledge the hard work that the council staff are 20 trying to be the meat in the sandwich between a lot of 21 these in other circumstances. 22 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Cathy. Any other questions 24 or comments from the floor? Paul and then Di. 25 26 MR CZULOWSKI: Paul Czulowski, from Kiama Council. 27 One thing I would like to raise is the final compliance cost 28 associated with non-compliance of provisions under the 29 Local Government Act. In simplistic form, if an order has 30 been served for someone to connect to the sewer, you go 31 through the channels and negotiate and so on. Finally, to 32 get the job done, you have to get a court order. That 33 costs $5,000, and then you have to put that back on the 34 person who has not complied. Part of the issue is 35 associated with council entering the property to exercise 36 the order. They have to go to court first to get that 37 order, which has legal costs and so on, which will probably 38 cover the cost of complying with the order two to three 39 times over. 40 41 There may be a tweaking of some of the legislation 42 under the Local Government Act that allows council with 43 discretionary of outgoing to get a court order to execute 44 the terms and conditions. That compliance cost, gathering 45 of evidence and so on is fairly extensive just on that 46 aspect. 47 .4/12/2012 112 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Paul. Diane. 2 3 MS WHITEFORD: Diane Whiteford. Talking about the 4 previous lady's comments about one size does not fit all in 5 the communities, I think, really, so be it. If Coles wants 6 to put a supermarket in an area that won't sustain it 7 because the community doesn't want it, let Coles put the 8 supermarket in and fail, but I will bet you if Coles puts 9 the supermarket in, oh, my goodness me, it is supported by 10 the community, providing it provides a good service, its 11 goods are cheaper than the local corner store who deals 12 with small quantities and can't provide the lower cost 13 option of shopping, so in the end, again, what do 14 communities really want? That's a big question, and who 15 can answer that? I think if Coles decides to put the 16 supermarket in, as I said before, and it fails, bad luck, 17 Coles. I bet it won't, though. 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Diane. Any other comments, 20 questions? 21 22 MS RAY: Anita Ray, Civil Contractors Federation of New 23 South Wales. The Civil Contractors Federation is a 24 member-based group for the civil construction industry and 25 employers. What I am faced with and also some of my 26 colleagues is that a lot of our members phone us up wanting 27 advice on environment policy, on work health and safety, on 28 IR. The reason is legislation. Legislation changes, they 29 don't know who is responsible, they don't know what they 30 are supposed to do. 31 32 I think we are looking at the local government in 33 terms of consistency, but we also need to look at what is 34 happening at the state level in terms of legislation, 35 because legislation is really driving it. We need to 36 actually ensure that legislation and regulation can be 37 understood and implemented. It does not really matter if 38 the regulator is at the state level or the local 39 government. What we do require is clarity. Thank you. 40 41 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything else? No. 42 43 Concluding Remarks: 44 45 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much. This has been a 46 worthwhile experience for IPART and I hope for many of you. 47 It has been really interesting and we appreciate the effort .4/12/2012 113 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

1 that people have put in, both in the audience and around 2 the table in terms of making a contribution, and for the 3 very high quality of the questions asked. We appreciate it 4 very much. 5 6 This is the final stage of our information gathering 7 phase. What the team will be doing now is to develop 8 specific practical recommendations to reduce unnecessary 9 regulatory costs for councils, businesses in the community, 10 and we are now going to work on producing a draft report. 11 This will outline our draft recommendations. We will 12 consider all the issues that were raised today as well as 13 in the submission. We plan to release the draft report in 14 March next year. After considering submissions in response 15 to the draft report - so you will all get another 16 opportunity - we will then provide the government with our 17 final report by the end of June 2013. 18 19 What has been valuable is raising the conceptual 20 issues and the framework, but also the specific issues that 21 have been raised which are really important in terms of us 22 framing practical recommendations. I do encourage you to 23 periodically monitor IPART's web site for updates and 24 further information on the timetable, including the date of 25 the release of the draft report, and also the date upon 26 which submissions are due in response to that report. 27 28 Finally, I remind you that a transcript from today 29 will be on IPART's website within the week. I thank you 30 all once again and wish you all a good afternoon. 31 32 AT 3.18PM THE TRIBUNAL ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 .4/12/2012 114 Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation