What are you planning, Barry?
Although one of the more substantial issues yet raised in the state election campaign, little notice has been given to Liberal leader Barry O’Farrell’s promise to repeal the divisive 3A planning powers introduced under Frank Sartor MP and reviled by councils, community groups and environmentalists across New South Wales.
This section of the state’s main planning and development law gives the right of final say on all major developments to the State’s Planning Minister. However, the definition of ‘major development’ as being anything with a price tag of more than $10M has essentially meant Macquarie Street having total discretion over everything from car parks and petrol stations to high rises and coal mines.
Just as John Howard’s total control over both houses of federal parliament has been credited with his downfall, state Labor’s total domination all planning decisions and their associated revenue streams has seen a steady stream of corruption allegations and dubious approvals utterly white-ant any credibility the party formerly had as prosecutors of social justice.
In the leader’s debate at Penrith in early February, O’Farrell voiced a commitment that if elected, his party will scrap the government’s 3A powers and rewrite the Planning Act.
Greens MP David Shoebridge agrees that voters should turn against 3A, calling it “another example of the free ride Labor is giving developers and corporations in NSW.”
But without the Liberals presenting any detailed Bill to replace current planning laws, he says that “Barry O’Farrell and The Coalition have said they’ll repeal Part 3A, but they haven’t said what they’ll replace it with. In four years time we could all be campaigning against a repackaged Part 3B.”
“The Greens want to replace Part 3A with an Independent State Planning Commission to decide on state significant infrastructure and genuine large scale projects.
“Unlike Part 3A, the Greens’ proposed Independent State Planning Commission would be bound by state and local planning and environmental controls. It would also be independent of the Government of the day and their developer mates.”
By Roger Hanney
