Page 1776 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Such a dialogue needs to be informed by a vision of how we plan to live together, how our infrastructure and resources are allocated, how our buildings work, how we relate to the physical environment around us, the impact we have on the planet, and how we can best organise ourselves to provide support for and opportunity to everyone in our society. Some of that work was done by this ACT government in developing its spatial and social plans, but in our view too much of that vision was abandoned in the planning system reform project, of which these bills are the key part. The legislation does not provide for, indeed it often excludes, that dialogue.
I acknowledge that there has been considerable opportunity for business stakeholders and community groups to feed into its development over the years. I welcome the clearer, more considered approach to environmental impact assessment reflected in this bill when required. However, all the essential thinking had been locked in place before true community consultation took place. So the priority has been to simplify the processes, cut red tape and add certainty for property developers at the expense of the city, which should be free to change its shape in response to the contemporary needs and aspirations of the people who live in it.
The ACT government has announced that it is very proud that this project is a leading-edge example of the preferred model produced by the Development Assessment Forum and supported by the Howard government and the property council. It is a model that has been opposed by local governments around Australia and in this form by local community groups across Canberra. This is a planning and development bill; it is not a planning, environment and community bill. Perhaps it should just be called the planning for development bill.
It is worth making the point that, while the reduction in duplication and the elimination of unnecessary costs and inefficiencies are worthy aims, not all red tape generates such inefficiencies. Another name for red tape is regulatory requirement. Most regulatory requirements arise because of either a perceived threat to some aspect of the public good or as a considered or knee-jerk reaction to an experience where some partial interest group has profited from damaging some aspect of the public good.
Of course, there will always be people involved in development who would like to eliminate constraints on their pursuit of profits, but they are merely one voice among many. The fact that they have large amounts of tax deductible money to throw around, combined with a financial interest in eliminating development conditions, should not elevate the development lobby’s interests above those of the people who have to live with the developments that they want to make money constructing.
The New South Wales government has become corrupted from the disproportionate amount of political funding that is flowing into the New South Wales Labor Party’s coffers from development interests. The most blatant payback for the so-called “donations” has been changes to state laws limiting the capacity for local councils, community groups and individuals to have input into planning decisions and to object to inappropriate development proposals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .