Image: Sue Higginson / Facebook & Wikimedia Commons
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has confirmed that it was never asked to review the sweeping Planning System Reform Bill in full.
The revelation has amplified integrity concerns among politicians, particularly from Greens planning spokesperson Sue Higginson, who is demanding the release of ICAC’s internal advice, as well as stronger safeguards in the proposed Bill.
ICAC says it was excluded from final Bill oversight
In correspondence to Higginson, ICAC’s Corruption Prevention Division acknowledged that while its staff had provided probity advice on structural matters (such as the creation of the new Development Coordination Authority (DCA) and Housing Delivery Authority (HDA)) it was never asked to assess the full Bill, or the controversial “Targeted Assessment Development” (TAD) pathway in particular.
This stands in contrast to statements by Planning Minister Paul Scully, who had previously said ICAC had been directly engaged in shaping the reforms.
Opposition and crossbench MPs have seized on the apparent discrepancy as evidence of an “integrity failure” in the planning changes currently before Parliament.
Minister Scully has been urged to release in full the written advice ICAC provided during the Bill’s drafting period, prior to the parliamentary debate.
“While there is no requirement for ICAC to review legislation, out of an abundance of caution, we sought advice on changes within the Bill and the ICAC has not raised any concerns with the approach proposed,” Scully said in a statement to City Hub.
“The Targeted Assessment Pathway will not be used for resources or large renewable energy projects, and I have provided this assurance to lobby groups and MP’s who have raise this with me. I repeat that assurance now and I will make it clear in my response to the second reading debate on the Bill.
“Large projects, whether resources, energy or manufacturing projects that have significant impacts require a comprehensive assessment and this will continue to be the case.”
What the Planning System Reform Bill does
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning System Reforms) Bill 2025 is being described by legal, environmental and planning experts as one of the most far-reaching overhauls of the state’s planning laws in decades.
While the Minns Government has promoted the Bill as a housing supply measure designed to “make the system faster and fairer,” critics argue it goes much further — affecting all classes of development across NSW, not just residential projects.
The reforms would establish new ministerially controlled bodies, including the Development Coordination Authority (DCA), which would have broad powers to coordinate planning and development across the state. The DCA would be able to make recommendations and even decisions under delegation, with no independent oversight or statutory requirement for public reporting.
Another major change is the introduction of the Targeted Assessment Development (TAD) pathway, allowing the Minister to declare certain developments or classes of development as exempt from normal environmental or public interest considerations. Under this model, it would be unlawful for decision-makers to consider the environment, site suitability, or the public interest under section 4.15 of the Act — provisions that have long acted as essential anti-corruption and accountability checks.
Greens raise the alarm
Sue Higginson has spoken out with her concerns about the Bill, warning that although the government frames it as housing reform, the draft legislation actually pulls back environmental protections and gives too much power without oversight.
“This Bill has been sold as housing reform, but what it really does is wind back environmental protections, applies to all development and hand extraordinary power to the Minister and a new bureaucracy … with no independent oversight,” said Higginson. “That is exactly the kind of structure that has enabled corruption in NSW planning before, and it is happening again.”
She continues: “The Government has told the Parliament that ICAC helped shape these reforms, but ICAC has confirmed that it was never asked to review or comment on the Bill. This is a serious integrity failure. I have written to the Planning Minister asking him to explain and release what advice the Government has received. They can’t claim anti-corruption credentials while refusing to release ICAC’s advice.”
Higginson also emphasises that for years ICAC has flagged the need for independent and separate impact assessment and decision-making to manage lobbying risks and maintain transparency — but the Bill does precisely the opposite. She argues that the DCA and the TAD pathway concentrate massive discretionary power in the Minister, remove mandatory criteria, weaken transparency measures, and omit reporting requirements. She warned, “That is not a modern planning system, it is an invitation to corruption.”
“The public are right to demand a system they can trust,” she said.
What critics are calling for
Those opposing the Bill are calling for immediate transparency and oversight before the legislation is allowed to proceed. They want the government to release all of ICAC’s written advice and correspondence so that both Parliament and the public can see whether any of the Commission’s probity recommendations were implemented.
They are also demanding that the Bill be referred to ICAC for a formal integrity assessment, particularly focusing on the Development Coordination Authority and the Targeted Assessment Development provisions — the two elements seen as most vulnerable to political interference.
The Greens, community groups and environmental organisations are further urging a parliamentary inquiry to scrutinise the full consequences of the reforms on environmental protection, community participation, and corruption risk. They argue that genuine reform must restore independence between assessment and decision-making, limit ministerial discretion through clear statutory criteria, reinstate strong transparency and reporting obligations, and reintroduce community participation rights that have been stripped back in the current draft.
They also want the Bill amended to re-embed climate and hazard assessment obligations, reinstate biodiversity consultation requirements, and ensure planning decisions once again serve the public interest rather than political expedience.
You May Also Like
