|
The
NSW Government has always supported development of the ADI Site. State
Government support started with the Greiner Liberal Government which put
the site on the Urban Development Program in 1993. In 1995, the
incoming Carr Labor Government kept the planning process rolling along.
The Iemma Government is at risk of being turfed out of office at the next State election. Some
say it has become arrogant and drunk with power.
The Iemma Government, like
most modern governments, continues to hinder public scrutiny of its
policies. In many cases where its policies are criticised it simply
ignores those who dare dissent or resorts to drastic measures like
drafting fresh legislation to get its way. The Clyde Waste Transfer
Station is an example.
The community consultation
stage in most planning processes is carefully spin doctored to give the
impression that the government is undertaking an open, transparent and
inclusive process. Governments have mastered the art of putting a
democratic gloss on processes that are anything but democratic. This has been ADI RAG's
experience.
The
following may assist with understanding the agenda of the State
Government.
It
is put that the central focus of urban planning by corporate liberalist
governments, such as that in New South Wales (NSW), is to drive economic
growth. In order to drive growth, corporate liberal governments, through
policy developments, build relationships with macro political interests
and private sector elites (developers and big business). Micro political
interests outside of the corporate liberalists agenda are therefore only
offered a tokenistic
opportunity to comment at the community consultation stage.
Tokenism
is the key word here. Gleeson and Low (2000: 137) interpret Arnstein’s degrees
of tokenism as ‘meaning participation strategies that had little
consequence for planning but which served to put a democratic gloss on
institutional practice.’
Johnston
(1997: 11) defines urban planning as ‘the interplay between imagination
and regulation, between free will and collective choice as expressed in
law, codes and master plans’. Gleeson and Low (2000: 12) define what
urban planning should be, as, ‘The activity of governance required to
make sure that all services people need in a city are provided when and
where the need occurs’. Gleeson and Lows’ definition implies that
governments have a duty to the well being of its citizens by ensuring
that planning policies are properly implemented. Urban governance must
therefore be fair and just with laws and rules that aim to benefit all of
its citizens. It must be democratic. It must be in the public interest.
The
public interest though is a much contested and problematic concept.
Society is made up of many competing groups (pluralist theory) with
different beliefs, values and power. Can planning policy then reflect the
interests of all these competing groups? Gleeson and Low (2000: 229)
believe that a desire to be healthy, have a quality environment and to
live in harmony connects all citizens. Therefore planning and urban
governance ‘must concern itself with the welfare of all’. Gleeson and
Low (2000: 215) believe that urban planning in Australia needs to be
reformed if it is to survive in a globalised world. They blame the erosion
of democracy in Australia on globalisation and the rise of neoliberalism
or economic rationalism, as it is more commonly known in Australia.
The
NSW government has adopted corporate liberalism as a form of governance.
They have become entrepreneurs, competing with other states for investment
dollars. A document released by the NSW Department of State and Regional
Development (DSRD) promoting development titled ‘Beyond 2000’
states:
‘The
NSW government has a commitment to…promoting business expansion and
development…working with the private sector, the government is
implementing a post 2000 jobs plan for economic growth for NSW…the
policies are in place.’ (DSRD, 2000: 1)
Facilitating
development is the main message from this document. Implied in the message
is that developers (macro political interests) are guaranteed the support
of the government. One could argue that the level of government support is
proportional to the level of private sector investment.
The
NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act 1979 includes in its
objects ‘to provide increased opportunity for public involvement in
environmental planning and assessment’. Public involvement (largely the
domain of micro political interests) amounted to being able to make
comment on publicly exhibited plans and environmental assessments.
Comments received would then be considered before consent was given to
develop. (Munro-Clark (ed), 1992: 69) It should be noted that under
section 101 of the EPA Act the planning minister could override the EPA
Act if he considers it in the public interest to do so. Gleeson and Low
(2000: 190) state that:
‘Contemporary
neoliberalism
in its various institutional and political guises, has set out to reduce
democracy in the domain of planning…neoliberalism
is not in the public interest but in the interest of the corporate
public’.
«top |
