Riverina Red Gums

Debate on the Government’s National Park Estate (River Red Gum Reservations) Bill 2010 (No 2) came with the type of emotion and rhetoric from all sides that would be expected from such a divisive matter.

The Bill was not expected on the day, at least not by others than the Government who were in the know. Changing the Standing Orders to bring on such an important Bill at short notice and to push it through within the session is just plain wrong – it reeks of “clever” politics, setting aside the expectation of reasonable notice, usually five days.

Concerns of local effected residents are understandable; after all, life as they know it is going to change and all the assurances in the world that they will be looked after will be viewed with absolute scepticism.

The fact may be disputed by the Government, but the reality is that this Bill was brought on, perhaps not as an outright deal, but if not, at least as an appeasement to the Greens as the Government seeks to shore up support for preferences in March next year; no actual discussion of preferences maybe, but a “nod and a wink” wouldn’t surprise me.  No slur on the Greens; their views on this matter have long been known and they have worked hard for the result.

Having said that I do support the intention of the legislation, which will create an extremely significant National Park protecting a wide range of species within this important ecological system. Inclusion of a greater legislated role for traditional owners in the management of this land was also very significant.

Local industries have been provided with compensation but it remains to be seen if this is enough. Claims that this Park will generate tourism dollars are in my view quite weak and eco-tourism in itself is unlikely to substantially offset losses from industries that have relied on harvesting timber from the River Red Gum forests. Of course, the truth of this will be only known with hindsight. Because of this it will be important for the Government, and the next, to carefully watch the impact on these communities and take action as needed to ensure that these communities can adapt and hopefully prosper.

The debate was extensive and credit to Frank Sartor who I think argued his point well. Properly done, this decision could in the long-term provide benefits for those local communities and ensure the best conditions for the sustainability of the River Red Gum Forests. In short, I don’t like how it was done, possibly not why it was done, but I think the decision is correct.

Leave of Absence

I need to apologise for my so far unexplained absence - its nearly ten weeks since I have updated the Blog! Ten weeks where I just haven't been able to bring myself to make comment on the woeful state of political leadership in NSW. My sincere apologies to Sally, not so much because she likes to read what I write, but more because she sees my Blog as a tangible sign that I have at least done something!

NSW has not risen to any great heights of governance or political maturity in the meantime. Highlights include the overturning in the Land and Environment Court of the approval given by former Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, for the controversial Catherine Hill Bay development. The development proposed by the Rose Group was found to have been tainted (my words) by a memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister and the developer regarding land transfers to the public once approved. This is one of those times I get to say "told you so" as I specifically made that point to Frank soon after his approval. I told him that I believed he had compromised the perception of objectivity in assessing the proposal. I must admit that I saw it as a point of complaint but not one that would gain enough traction to succeed in court.

The judgement leaves some outstanding questions, though. The Government often gives some indication of "you do that, we'll do this." Councils do it as well and I have often been with staff where we have negotiated a range of outcomes attached to a future approval. Specifically, this is done under Voluntary Planning Agreements where a fair balance between development and other outcomes is negotiated. The judgement needs further explanation to clarify where this type of approach can rightly be applied as opposed to where it would fetter an objective assessment.

Did anything else happen in the meantime? ..... other than the murder of Michael McGurk, the re-emergence of Graham Richardson from the shadows, an introduction to the Medich brothers, an Upper House Inquiry into Planning issues surrounding lobbyists; and of course, the downfall of the Minister for Health John Della Bosca, and serious questions about ALP connections with Hightrade, Tony Stewart gained a victory of sorts when Premier Rees agreed that not all relevant information was considered when Chris Ronalds SC inquired into his behaviour; for this, Stewart dropped further legal action against the State - to mention just a few.

In the meantime the Shooters Party continue to unashamedly hold the Government to ransom in the Upper House until the Government supports their Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill allowing amongst other things, hunting in National Parks.

Amongst a myriad of other things, I have been working on a Private Members Bill (Surface Coal Mining Prohibition (Lake Macquarie) Bill 2009) that would unequivocally rule out the possibility of open-cut or “open-cut-ish” mining operations in Lake Macquarie. The text of the Bill is available on my website and I will write more on it soon. At this stage however, I am hoping to do the First Reading of the Bill on Friday 13th November and in the meantime will be asking the Government to support the Bill rather than kill or modify it.I am meeting with staff from Minister Keneally's office tomorrow and hope to get an indication of their view.

Della Bosca! - to the Back of the Line Please!

The news that John Della Bosca might be making a move for the Premiership has surprised me, and I would be surprised if the plan is advanced as media speculation suggests. Della’s aspirations for the top job have been part of routine speculation for some time and if he was in the Legislative Assembly when Morris Iemma resigned I have no doubt that he would be Premier now. 

As it is, he’s in the Upper House (Legislative Council) and would need to find a Lower House seat to contest and win before he could become Premier.  Regardless of speculation as to whether the Premier can be from the LC, the reality is that it would be almost impossible for that to be the case.  That’s the first hurdle. 

Secondly, he would need to be very sure that he had the numbers to displace Nathan Rees before having a go because adding to his risk, he would have to resign from the Legislative Council so as to contest an election for the Legislative Assembly.  Under that scenario he could end up with nothing – the ultimate political fizzer! 

Thirdly, Della Bosca is regarded as a smart politician and from what I have seen of him I would agree.  He knows that the ALP factions are more divided now than for a long time.  Not only would he have to be able to unite warring parties to get support; he would need to convince the electorate that he is worthy of support, particularly with the damage the Iguanagate Affair did to him.  Della is a good politician and given time he could probably convince the electorate about himself – I have my doubts though that they would easily embrace John and Belinda. 

I might be wrong but I can’t see this happening yet even though there seem few options acceptable to the Party.  Frank Sartor can never be written off either.  He certainly has his enemies and detractors but Sartor also has a track record of achievement and quite a few friends (political friends – not necessarily friends in the sense most people use the word) across the factions.  Those loyalties will no doubt further test Della's ability to get sufficient support. The only thing certain is that if Nathan Rees is to improve his popularity in the polls it will need to be on the back of Rudd and the Federal stimulus funding.  If that doesn’t work then we’ll see the outcome suggested by some from the Right – there will never be another Premier from the Left!  For some, the experiment will have failed, for others, the Plan will have worked!

Part 3A Tested in Land & Environment Court by EDO

The way in which Part 3A of the EP&A Act was used to approve controversial residential developments in the Hunter, is being tested by The Environmental Defenders Office. Developments at Catherine Hill Bay (Lake Macquarie LGA) and nearby Gwandalan (Wyong LGA) , as well as the large Huntlee development straddling parts of Singleton and Cessnock LGAs near Branxton.

Reports are that there is merit in the argument against the development approval process and that they may be deemed illegal.  I understand that the basis for this is that agreements had been made between the Minister and the Developers as to certain outcomes prior to consideration of planning merit.

I have previously discussed this matter with Frank Sartor and indicated that I believed he had made the wrong call to sign an MOU at Catherine Hill Bay to give a certain number of lots (around 600) in exchange for land dedication to the State, prior to a proper assessment.  Surely the desire to have the land dedication fettered the ability to objectively consider other issues. This seems to be the argument being put forward by the EDO.  Let me say I can understand at face value why the former Planning Minister would have thought the outcome desirable.  In land area terms there is a substantially larger portion being transferred to the public at no cost than is going to be developed.  That however is not a consideration in planning merit terms.