Is the NSW government caving in to News Corp and the mining lobby?
Has the New South Wales government again caved in to the state’s powerful mining lobby and the ill-informed campaigning by the so-called “battler’s newspaper”, News Corp’s the Daily Telegraph, on behalf of the top end of town?
The NSW government announced at the weekend a review of its Independent Planning Commission, following white-hot anger from the powerful mining and property development industry about a number of projects being blocked.
Insiders say the review is mainly aimed at ensuring the commission runs more smoothly and there is no intention to abandon independent scrutiny of development in NSW. Let’s hope so.
But there are worrying signs. The terms of reference for the inquiry include asking the reviewer, the former auditor general Peter Achterstraat, to “recommend whether it is in the public interest to maintain an Independent Planning Commission”.
The IPC has come under fire from the Daily Telegraph, which has taken up the cause of the mining industry, following the IPC decision to block a major new coalmine in Bylong valley, proposed by the Korean miner Kepco, last month.
It has blasted the IPC for taking account of 2,500 form submissions from environmental groups, branding them “yuppies from Sydney’s north shore”, and implying they shouldn’t have a say at all.
No doubt the IPC has seen campaigns before and is capable of considering the weight it should give to such submissions, compared to those of local residents or indeed the people who will make money out of the development.
But it still came to the conclusion that the mine should be blocked.
It took account of the long-lasting environmental impacts from burning the coal in South Korea combined with the major impacts on prime agricultural land in the valley. Kepco failed to convince the IPC that it could remediate the valley after the huge open cut mine was exhausted, leaving what was once a prime horse raising and farming area a moonscape.
The Tele took the view that it was all about coal jobs – 650 construction jobs and 450 jobs for the state’s central west over the mine’s 30-year life – without considering what the loss of farming enterprises might mean. Or the need to think beyond coal and start planning for a future where other industries provide jobs in the regions.
One of the big reforms introduced by the NSW Coalition in 2011 when it came to power was to put development approvals for contentious major projects increasingly into the hands of an independent arbiter.
Labor set up the Planning Assessment Commission in 2008 in a bid to distance itself from a string of planning scandals involving a series of ministers. But major projects were still signed off by the planning minister, leading to ongoing allegations that decisions were swayed by political lobbying, pressure from developers and in some cases corruption.
The former planning minister Frank Sartor was referred to the Independent
Commission Against Corruption on several occasions over planning approvals including the redevelopment of Burwood town centre and a major greenfields development at Branxton, but no findings were made against him.
There were further corruption inquiries into the grants of mining licences, plans to extend the coal facilities at Newcastle and private sector development of water infrastructure in Sydney’s west by Australian Water Holdings.
After the Doyles Creek mine scandal, which led to charges, a conviction and then a successful appeal by the former mining minister Ian Macdonald, the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended (again) that ministers get out of approving developments.
In 2011 the Coalition came to power promising to clean up planning and to date has consistently moved toward using independent panels to assess and more recently decide major projects.
In March 2018 it introduced further reforms and renamed the PAC to the IPC , widening its remit to be the consent authority and making it clear it was indeed independent of government.
At the local government level all councils were now required to have independent planning panels to assess larger and contentious projects.
But this has angered developers and the mining industry, who are finding that they can’t always have their way.
Just to put this in perspective: the vast majority of projects before the IPC are approved, sometimes with conditions. Only a handful have been rejected over the years. Mostly the decisions follow the recommendation of the planning department.
There have been a few problems. This year the IPC was forced to remake a decision after it announced its approval of the Rix Mine extension before submissions had closed.
But it seems to be the controversial decisions that are stirring this campaign against the regulator. The IPC is now considering the controversial RitzCarlton 237-metre tall hotel at the Star casino in Pyrmont. It, very properly, rejected a request for a confidential meeting with Star management, saying it “does not hold confidential meetings”.
The director general of planning has already recommended against the tower on the grounds that it is out of proportion with the heritage area, as have two architects asked by the government for their view.
But the NSW government has found another way to appease the development industry. It has now declared it plans to change the planning controlsand make Pyrmont thenext frontier of expansion for the central business district.
These sort of knee-jerk changes are always dressed up as making an area “more vibrant”, “world class” and ensuring that we send a signal that “Sydney is open for business”.
Announcing the new review, the planning and public spaces minister, Rob Stokes, said a two-month review of the IPC will be conducted by NSW commissioner for productivity, Peter Achterstraat, who will make recommendations to government about the IPC’s purpose and structure.
“NSW is open for business and while we need a referee for some planning decisions, every referee needs a health check from time to time,” Stokes said. Worrying.
Among Achterstraat’s tasks are to determine what should be the thresholds for the referral of matters to the IPC. He will also consider the clarity and certainty of policies and guidelines that inform its determinations, the commissioners’ skills, expertise and qualifications, the extent to which the IPC should rely upon the assessment report prepared by the department and resourcing.
If Sydneysiders care about having planning that is free from corruption and which tries to balance community interests with those of developers, they should take part in this inquiry.
The review is due to be provided to the minister by mid-December 2019, so it’s clearly not going to be in-depth. Let’s hope the Tele is wrong when it says the IPC is “for the chop”.
As an independent body it has processes to allow diverse viewpoints to be heard, not just the views of those who have the ear of the minister.
A body chaired by the former chief scientist Mary O’Kane and comprised of people with expertise in planning, such as architects and urban planners, is clearly preferable to politicians when it comes to deciding land use and aesthetics.
And the Coalition should reacquaint itself with the recent history of development under Labor. It was not pretty.