Editorial
Editorial |
|
|
by Jon Fairall |
Heading for Councils' EndRecent events in NSW will shrivel the role of local government. In my home state of New South Wales, Premier Morris Iemma's government is set to significantly reduce the involvement of local government in planning. If you are tempted to dismiss this as a rather parochial issue for a national magazine, bear with me a little. This will resonate across the land. Late last year, Frank Sartor - a former Lord Mayor of Sydney and now a member of the much-reviled Iemma government - released a discussion paper containing more than 90 recommendations to 'improve' the planning system in NSW. The resulting legislation was to reach the House in March. In essence, he proposes to either give the role of elected officials in local government to planning committees appointed by the state government, or directly to planning staff. Essentially, the distinction between the two is money. If a new development is worth more than $50 million it will go to a new Planning Assessment Commission. Alternatively, a planning arbitrator will review smaller planning applications for a fee of a few hundred dollars. The arbitrator will carry out a review within 21 days. A decision will be made within a further 14 days. Developments that comply with local environment plans would be processed in ten days, compared with today's system where a normal small application takes well over 60 days on average, and often much longer. Sartor wants to 'modernise the system' by expanding the e-planning across the state. On the face of it, this is an extraordinary bit of legislation. It makes it almost impossible for residents to object to the type of major project that is often driven by the requirements of large development companies. In a nutshell, Sartor wants to take the current local government based systems and either remove them completely from council control or, at least, reduce councils' ability to frustrate developers. Given the links between developers and the Labor party apparatus in Sydney, there is little cause for surprise in this. As I write this, Sydney is tittering at the sight of half the cabinet allegedly caught in corrupt relationships with developers in the city of Wollongong. There's a blonde involved and, apparently, lots and lots of inappropriate sex. Titter we might, but as the good citizens fall about laughing, the big end of town is gathering for a feeding frenzy. It bespeaks a fundamental shift in power in one of the most important relationships in public life. It's long been a truism of the Australian political scene that we are over-governed. Practically everyone agrees that we don't need two national assemblies, 12 or so state assemblies and more than 600 local authorities to govern a nation of 20 million people. We could halve the number of politicians and still be well governed. We all agree so far. The snarling starts when you suggest which layer of government should disappear. National and local governments are joined in their distain for the state layer. Incompetent and unnecessary is a typical sober assessment. Most state politicians seem to treat the Fed with amiable contempt. The Council of Australian Governments, where all the jurisdictions meet to thrash out contentious national issues, is usually a media fest full of posturing in front of indignant journalists. For all this, power flows only one way - from the Commonwealth on down. The states must beg and plead for money. State-level politicians reserve their full fury for the hapless denizens of local government, who are amalgamated, suspended, dis-endorsed and generally thrashed about by state administrations. In general, the only restraint on the power of the commonwealth over the states, and of the states over local government, is public indignation in the ballot box. Now, when it counts, local government has few friends to call on. Who is indignant? Certainly not any citizen that has undertaken even the smallest renovation. It needs to be said that there are some councils, one or two, that respond quickly to development applications. The process is transparent. The development rules are clear and unambiguous. The complaints process is fair. The results are consistent. For most people, most of the time, the experience of running a development proposal through council is exactly the opposite of all these things. The usual experience for developers - whether its Pop's shed down the back or a multimillion dollar high rise in the CBD - is that the process is long, bureaucratic and opaque. Why is it so? In fairness, it has to be said that running a local government is not easy or obvious. But for at least a decade there have been perfectly good information solutions available to local governments to solve their planning dilemmas. Too many local governments have simply not bothered. They have been content to shove the mapping system into the corner, ignored the input of their GIS people and hoped for business as usual. At this writing, it is not clear whether Sartor's plans will pass through the parliament. It probably doesn't matter all that much. The important issue is that the state administration has proposed taking over the most significant function of local government and the citizens have shown they don't care. That must send shivers down the spine of every council man and woman. It might even provide an opportunity for GIS officers to show how it could be done. Jon Fairall is the editor of Position |
|
Top of PageTable of Contents
|
|
