O'Farrell on Stateline - Planning and Donations

On ABCs Stateline tonight we saw one of the better performances of Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell. As O'Farrell clearly articulated the Oppositions plans regarding planning regulation and election funding, he managed to blunt the usual effective cynicism of Quentin Dempster.

O'Farrell dealt appropriately with issues regarding the outrageous changes to planning that have been perpetrated on the people of NSW by Labor.  I am paraphrasing but I took his meaning to be that planning consent powers will be returned to elected local councils for most things.  Part 3A of the EP&A Act will be repealed.  The effect of Joint Regional Planning Panels soon to commence and the loss of local decision making will I believe come back to bite this Government.

In the same vein, O'Farrell is suggesting reducing the influence of big money on the election process by capping election campaign costs.  This is sensible and something that I have supported when I previously made my own submission to the Upper House Inquiry into this matter.  The system that Labor capriciously implemented following the Wollongong Council scandal is a mess, a mess that is hard to comply with, hard to police, and seemingly causing confusion even within the Election Funding Authority.  Let's make it simple - it will be better for all.

I'm not sure what the property industry will make of all this - the risk of losing their newly won power over development consent in NSW & the loss of or at least a reduction in being able to buy influence, particularly with Labor?

To be fair, when it comes to large election campaign donations, there are no clean skins, or very few, particularly amongst the traditional parties - but NSW Labor seemed to take it to a whole new and obscene level; they perfected the system.  So, if there is a stench surrounding the new planning laws, where should we look? - it's hard to get away from the powerful perception that at least a few, and some of the most influential in the Labor Party, knew exactly what they were doing.

Hunter Jobs Summit & Community Forum

I attended the State Government's Job Summit at Warners Bay this afternoon.  I attended as Mayor as I had not been invited (or acknowledged) as State Member.  Let me say first off that I think it is great that the Premier came to our area to learn about and speak about opportunities for job creation in our area.  Jobs are critically important.  A high level of work participation and incomes are vital to social justice and equity, and community well-being.  Without community well-being and reasonable wealth we cannot address pressing issues including the protection of our environment.

The Premier invited comments and questions from the floor, so I was a little surprised that he tried to cut me off in giving a preamble to my question.  I was asking if his government would support the Council in seeking Commonwealth infrastructure funding for the proposed Lake Macquarie Transport Interchange and Pennant Street Bridge at Glendale.  This project is estimated to cost $70M - $80M with a multiplier effect that would bring its value to well over $300M!  The Pennant St Bridge would allow access for some 16000 workers in the Cardiff Industrial Area, just across the rail line, to access public transport.  The bridge would also rectify problems within the road network of the industrial site, generating even more investment from business.

This project is the proverbial "no-brainer".  It has huge economic benefits in direct and ongoing jobs, builds capacity in the area that will be needed as our regional population grows, and most importantly, it will make public transport a viable and attractive option for thousands.

Unfortunately, the Premier was not generous in his response.  For some reason he wanted to point out that everyone wants something and that there is only so much money to go around. True - and the answer may have been reasonable if the Summit wasn't about creating jobs!  This would be one of the best short, medium, and long-term investments for jobs in the region.  His response was even stranger as I hadn't asked the Premier for money, rather, I asked his support to seek Commonwealth money!  A strange and disappointing response.

I wasn't at the following community forum but I understand that the Premier was given "a serve" by former Milton Orkopoulos staffer, Gillian Sneddon.  Without Gillian's courage, the activities of Orkopoulos would never have come to light.  She believes that others in the ALP knew what was happening and did nothing.  She believes that Nathan Rees knew, particularly as he had been an advisor to Milton for a year before the issue blew up - something Mr Rees denies.

Perhaps if the Premier met with Gillian, or at least gave her the chance to speak at the forum, he might be able to start the healing process.  Regardless of the payments Gillian received as entitlements after not being re-employed as an Electorate Officer, this woman has been put through hell.  Her physical and mental health has suffered, she has been unable to work and her finances are depleted.  She is worried about her future - all for having done the right thing - and if she is correct, all for doing what others should have done themselves.

Joint Regional Planning Panels

Councils throughout the state have been asked to nominate Councillors to serve on Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) which are to be operational in July this year.  The Panels will determine Development Applications (DAs) valued over $10M, all eco-tourism developments over $5M and Council applications over $5M or where the Council has a perceived conflict of interest.  In its last term, Lake Macquarie dealt with around thirty within those categories.  The vast majority were approved and some were approved with modification to address community or council concern. 

The panels will have 5 members, 3 appointed by the Minister, and 2 nominated by the relevant Council and appointed by the Minister. Almost universally, Councils across NSW have opposed this process which is widely seen as having been a victory for the development industry  - a victory which is unlikely to satisfy them until all consent powers are removed from Councils.

While there will be Councillors willing to serve on these panels, they will be in an invidious position.  The Council nominee will not be representing the Council, that is explicit under the regulations establishing the Panels. It is very conceivable that they will frequently be at odds with the view of local residents, council officers or their fellow councillors who may from time to time make a submission on a DA.  The current system will frequently see a Council decision that goes against the views of at least some members of the community and occasionally against staff recommendations.  At least in that instance, the decision is shared by a majority of Councillors who would not have lightly taken that position, particularly when they are so close to and directly accountable to their electorate.

Will the JRPPs work?  I'm sure they will speed up decisions in some Councils, but not necessarily with better outcomes.  Are they democratic and accountable? Absolutely not!  We have moved a very long way to the right in our political and bureaucratic processes in recent times, and all through changes championed by the development industry and embraced by the NSW Labor Party.  Removing decision making by the inappropriate use of Part 3A, SEPP 71 (Coastal Development) and now JRPPs have all been unnecessary to get better outcomes for the development industry and the community.  I have no doubt that the State Government could have developed and negotiated much better outcomes that would have seen them as supporting local decision making.  Unfortunately, there remains an adversarial relationship between the state and local government in too many areas.

A meeting of the  Board of Hunter Councils, representing 11 Local Government Areas, last week recommended constituent Councils decline to nominate representatives until amongst other things, the Government addresses very real concerns about JRPPs raised in a submission by the Local Government and Shires Assoc. to the Department of Planning.

Tony Stewart - Member for Bankstown/former Minister

Nathan Rees opened up a "can of worms" when he dismissed then Minister for Small Business, Tony Stewart from the portfolio, following an investigation into alleged misconduct at a charity event.  The Premier didn't act without advice though, he commissioned the services of Chris Ronalds SC to investigate allegations by Stewart's staffer, Tina Sanger, that he had abused her and placed his hand on her leg, apparently to stop her rising from her seat.

Even though Chris Ronalds did not interview all who may have observed the incident, she found that she was more inclined to believe Ms Sanger's version of the events.  On that basis, the Premier removed Tony Stewart from Cabinet.  Two things happened to Stewart from this - he lost a prestigious position and very likely any chance to further advance in politics; but more importantly I am sure, he had his reputation damaged, perhaps irreparably.

Assuming that Stewart carried out the actions he was accused of, that may be fair.  Unfortunately, the process that Rees used was clearly a quasi judicial process more akin to a "kangaroo court" than a proper inquiry.  Tony Stewart was in my opinion denied natural justice and procedural fairness.  Whether or not that is the legal case will be decided by the Supreme Court unless the Premier takes other action acceptable to Stewart to head off a Court ruling.

I know Tony Stewart to say hello to only.  I have no idea of what he is like as a person but have never seen or heard anything to question his character.  If the Premier had other reasons for wanting to remove Stewart as a Minister then he should have just done so.  Ministers can be promoted or demoted and while there may be a political need to find some justification for it, that would surely be better than to use a process that has destroyed a mans reputation and hurt not just him, but also his family.  In trying to show that he is firmly in control, Nathan Rees once again showed that he is still very much serving an apprenticeship.  Tony Stewart has every right to be angry.  

the Drunken Slur

We all want a safer community. We want to be able to go out with our partners, friends and families without being affronted by the drunken and sometimes intimidating antics of others. But really, does Nathan Rees truly believe that police need new powers to curb anti-social behaviour, or is it not patently obvious that this is the next move in his strategy to show the Government as tough on crime?

I am unconvinced that the police cannot take action now, if they feel inclined. My guess is that they will do what they have always done, assuming they are available at the time, they will make a judgement call as to whether the behaviour warrants action and whether or not they are inclined to use their precious time for that incident.

If slurring and antisocial behaviour is to be targetted, there will be many in the politics who should be worried. One good thing about the "get tough" on law and order that we are currently going through is that it fits nicely with other policies on recycling in NSW.

Stoner on Torbay - Some Nationals just don't get it

An article in todays Sydney Morning Herald regarding the intention of at least some of the Coalition to remove an Independent Speaker if they win Government in 2011 says more about those people than it does about the job that Richard Torbay has done as Speaker during this term of Government. The article by Lisa Carty confirms the contempt that Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner, has for Mr Torbay and for the role, to which he has brought a level of fairness that has not been seen before.

Andrew Stoner's concern is no doubt more about the popularity of Richard Torbay in the seat of Northern Tablelands, a seat the Nationals believe should be held by them.  Richard Torbay, by all accounts, has improved the behaviour in the Parliament and does give fairness to both sides. 

There have been times when I feel he allows the Government too much leeway, particularly when they use Question Time to blatantly ignore the question and instead attack the Opposition. While this might seem a reasonable thing to do in a political arena, I don't believe that it improves the quality of debate or improves the standing of politicians in the eyes of the community.  That said, Torbay is no doubt acutely aware of walking a fine line in improving on past partisan performances and yet maintaining Government support for independence in a Speaker. 

Andrew Stoner's own parliamentary performance is best characterised by his arrogance.  His manner of speech, body language and actions in the Chamber, including his affected jumping to his feet, then pouring a glass of water which he then makes a show of drinking theatrically, are embarrassing. His stated intentions regarding the Speakers position will not help Independents consider favourably supporting the Coalition if the election results in a hung parliament.

While the Government shows a clear arrogance in the way they act, it is an almost inevitable outcome of a long encumbancy and a confidence from the fact that they do have some good performers.  The arrogance of Andrew Stoner is more concerning in that the Opposition, apart from a few, has not demonstrated a capacity to be a competent alternative government.  This nonsense undermines Barry O'Farrell at a time when the Coalition should be developing policy and showing that they have the vision, heart, and capacity to lead NSW out of the mess created by Labor.  As far as "mill stones" go, Andrew Stoner could be a pretty big one around O'Farrell's neck.

Sydney to Surfers for Youth Off the Street

Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting up with just a few of the 160 people who are riding in the 2009 Macsim Sydney to Surfers Bike Ride to raise funds for Father Chris Riley's Youth Off The Streets.  The 7 day ride will no doubt be challenging and I can't imagine being fit enough to do it myself.  I understand that last years event raised over $250,000 and the riders are very hopeful for a great response again this year.  Corporate sponsors are important to the fundraising, but as one of the leading riders, Glen Druery, told me, it is well supported by small donors with all those five, ten, or twenty dollars adding up.  I was very pleased to be able to donate $250.00 to the charity when we met in Morisset at the end of Day 1 of their nearly 1000 km journey.