Peter Tucker
How the RPDC operates, and is perceived to operate, is central to public confidence in our planning system. If we lose that confidence then we can kiss the chance of continued sustainable growth in this State goodbye.
THE well-publicised and acrimonious departure of Julian Green, the executive chairman of the Resource Planning and Development Commission, has been a political disaster for the Lennon Labor Government.
But with disaster comes the chance for redemption: the opportunity is there for both the RPDC and the Government, if they have the will, to restore public confidence in the planning process.
The need for a properly functioning and effective RPDC has consequences much wider, and ramifications that will last much longer, than just whether Gunns ends up building a pulp mill on the banks of the Tamar River.
I have just finished reading the report of the Legislative Council’s 2006 select committee into planning schemes, which was released late last year.
Mr Green and I were among the dozens of witnesses who made submissions to the committee, Mr Green in his role as RPDC chairman and me as then Tasmanian president of the Planning Institute Australia. (I have no executive role with PIA, and views expressed here are my own.)
A number of themes came from committee’s findings which I personally endorse.
Foremost is the need for political leadership and commitment from the Government to ensure the planning system works properly. This includes properly resourcing a planning unit within the public service that takes a proactive role in recommending State policies, assists local government in developing planning skills, educates and informs the community about planning issues, and advises the minister on infrastructure, regional and strategic planning for the State as a whole.
Note that these tasks should not fall centrally to the RPDC. One fundamental problem at the moment is that the RPDC has become a de facto central planning agency when its intended role should be that of regulator.
Planning Minister and Deputy Premier Steve Kons has only been in the job for a few months. Will he succeed where his predecessors, Liberal and Labor, have failed? Will he make it clear to the RPDC what he wants it to do and what he expects?
Mr Kons is soon to appoint Mr Green’s replacement.*
It is clear that many in local government, State agencies and industry groups have not been happy with the way the RPDC communicates to its constituents. In the words of one Government policy officer I spoke to recently, the RPDC does not have a “strong client focus”.
Another persistent criticism of the RPDC is the time it has taken in some instances to reach a decision. There are persistent complaints from local government about the time taken to consider what they see as straightforward planning scheme amendments.
One procedure that could help manage the RPDC workload and also speed up processes is to allow directions hearings and mediation in the approval of planning schemes and amendments. Another change could be to loosen the emphasis for legal representation and technical jargon that currently dominate RPDC procedures.
If we are struggling at the moment in Tasmania it is not the RPDC or any one person or organisation’s “fault”. But we do need to accept we have a problem and that our planning system is not operating as it should. The public is entitled to doubt that the planning process is always fair, accessible, inclusive, timely and transparent.
How the RPDC operates, and is perceived to operate, is central to public confidence in our planning system. If we lose that confidence then we can kiss the chance of continued sustainable growth in this State goodbye.
First published in The Examiner Saturday, 27 January 2007, p.21
