I am generally supportive of the Government's vibrancy and night-time economy reform agenda. I spoke strongly in support of the first vibrancy bill that came through the Parliament last year, including a few too many Bono quotes—no such thing! I stress that I fully support the intent of the 24-Hour Economy Legislation Amendment (Vibrancy Reforms) Bill 2024 to take away the ridiculous clauses that have been spoken about by the Minister today and in the media. However, I continue to hold concerns about some provisions in the bill before the House.
Working with the Minister's office, agency staff and the member for Balmain—who is in the Chamber—we have addressed some of those concerns in an amendment moved by the Government in the Legislative Council last night, which provided more precision and robustness to new clause 1A (2) in schedule 8 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amended by schedule 5.1 to the bill. The amendment will avoid the risk of turning off plans of management contained in development consents in their entirety, when the Government's intention was to target only specific provisions contained within plans of management. This was based on direct feedback from local government planning colleagues, who would have to deal with the consequences of the change at the coalface. I thank the Government for moving that amendment in the Legislative Council last night.
However, I think that it speaks to the level of consultation on the bill, which was not as thorough as it could have been. I was glad to bring together the planning director from the Northern Beaches Council and representatives from Local Government NSW with the Minister's office, agency staff and the member for Balmain to discuss the bill and its consequences. It is my view that consultation with local government representatives should have happened sooner. To me, this seems consistent with a theme of this Government, which is insufficient engagement with the local government sector. I will always be a champion for local government—Angud, I am looking at you.
To be clear, I will not seek to move further amendments. But I will speak to some ongoing concerns I have. My interest in these issues comes from my 15 years as a mayor and too much exposure to the angst and community division between venues and residents that can be caused by mismanagement of noise complaints. It is fundamentally about how we all live together as harmoniously as possible and how we manage competing interests. The bill is about deregulation so I think caution is warranted. In particular, I have ongoing concerns about new clause 1A (4) in schedule 5 to the bill, which switches off conditions in development applications [DAs] that prohibit live entertainment for venues that hold hotel, club or small bar liquor licences. I appreciate the shift to a source‑agnostic noise management framework, but let us be real about the fact that live entertainment is typically going to be louder than non‑live entertainment.
We do not know how many venues across the State that change will impact—something I discovered in the past couple of days. That is because many DAs are not digitised and easily discoverable. For example, in my electorate I identified a specific bowling club to consider the implications of the changes proposed. That venue holds a club liquor licence; however, its conditions of consent are not digitised and accessible on the council's search tool. Let us assume that the no live entertainment condition does exist and will now be extinguished. Like many bowling clubs, that club is in a residential area. My understanding is that, under the bill, it could have live indoor entertainment, with no process before the fact to consider how the impact of the noise could be mitigated. Under the current noise management regime, with its reactive emphasis, five neighbours would need to complain to Liquor and Gaming NSW, which would then investigate, apply tests under the Liquor Act and potentially impose conditions as part of the liquor licence.
In principle, if an existing no live entertainment provision is being extinguished, then there should be some process for site-specific consideration about how live entertainment occurs at that venue. I am fine if that process cannot result in a refusal, but there should be some process to consider the precise location in the venue or time limits. It is not whether it can occur but how it occurs. Going from no live entertainment to unregulated live entertainment is a significant change. It will occur at an unknown number of venues until conditions are reactively imposed due to residents having to proactively engage in a bureaucratic process, which is—at best—tedious. It is unreasonable for surrounding residents and could be divisive and distressing for local neighbourhoods.
Someone may have lived for 50 years in a neighbourhood near a bowling club that has had no live entertainment and suddenly the disused or underused bowling green is now allowed to have that entertainment. The legislation says it does not need a DA but it may need one because of the change in nature. That is confusing. I will talk a little more about what we can do to help mitigate that. This move has the potential to be particularly problematic for bowling clubs, which are typically located in residential areas and are increasingly being gentrified—which is great—with more hospitality offerings. I have identified at least eight bowling clubs on the northern beaches with club liquor licences where this change could apply. There are also many down the road in Mosman and in other built‑up areas in North Sydney and the like.
My concern comes from the experience on the northern beaches with a particular bowling club. I will not go into too much detail and identify it; however, I believe it is an instructive example. During COVID, council changed the planning rules to allow outdoor activities to meet the square metre distancing rules and the like. That included live entertainment, which was taken up by this bowling club. Noise and disruption then distressed surrounding residents and controversy ensued. It was on the radio. It was everywhere and it continued. Reactively, council had to step in and initiate a DA process to impose conditions to mitigate the impact of the activities—not to disallow them, just to mitigate their impact. That situation is analogous to what is proposed here—a step change in what is allowed and then a reactive process only after community agitation.
I am a firm believer that prevention is better than cure. That demonstrates the broader social value in acting pre-emptively. All I am asking is that members think about bowling clubs in their electorates with back fences hard up against disused or underused bowling greens, particularly if they have been there for decades, the potential they have and what councils, police and other agencies will have to deal with to mitigate issues. The bill's changes, together with the reforms in last year's vibrancy bill, highlight the need to properly resource Liquor and Gaming NSW to communicate the new noise management regime, respond to complaints and regulate venues. From discussions we had with Northern Beaches Council as part of deliberations around the bill, it became clear that there are already issues on the ground with police directing noise complaints to council.
More education and communication is needed so people are accurately directed to Liquor and Gaming NSW. Once they are, Liquor and Gaming needs to be adequately resourced to respond in a timely and comprehensive manner. As I understand, only 12 compliance officers are employed by Liquor and Gaming statewide. I might be wrong. There might be 10 or 20, but 12 was the number I heard. On face value, that does seem inadequate given the fundamental shift in the regulatory regime and the elevated role of Liquor and Gaming NSW. I urge the Government to closely monitor community demand and the responsiveness of Liquor and Gaming NSW and increase its capacity if needed. More broadly, I think there is an opportunity to better communicate the new noise management framework to residents, the more permissive policy settings and the shift in emphasis to a reactive complaints‑based regulatory approach.
I strongly recommend that the Government make a mandatory addition to planning certificates, also called 10.7 certificates. I am so old that I know them as 149 zoning certificates, but they are now called 10.7 certificates. They are issued prior to property purchase to alert buyers to the current planning regime—what you can build on your land, what you cannot do, what State environmental planning policies are involved et cetera. But it would be good to also alert buyers to the current noise management regime, with a link to more information. That could be done via the environmental planning and assessment regulations. The bill introduces that requirement for properties within special entertainment precincts, but I think a universal addition to planning certificates is required. I have discussed that idea with local government colleagues and they are supportive because it is only one small but impactful mechanism that could be applied across the board that helps communicate the message and at least makes the buyer aware.
We all want to make sure the buyer is aware. Someone might do their due diligence and see there is no entertainment—"There is just a bowling club. You just bowl." Now you can have live music there, which is fine. I believe we all agree with that in this Parliament. That should be supported and we are supporting it. But if we can amend the planning assessment Act to put that on the planning certificates as a minimum, it is the least we can do. It has the support of local government because it is just easier. It will put it on the website. I thank the Minister's office, particularly Angud, and Emily from the Office of the 24‑Hour Economy Commissioner. They are amazing. I thank them for all their support and help. The agency staff are working through the issues and being so patient with me. It is very hard, I know.
23 October 2024, 19:17.
Read the full debate on the Hansard.