Peter Verwer |
Friday, 4 September 2009 12:01 AM |
One Comment
| For a sneak preview and an opportunity to comment on the strategic planning framework principles, please visit www.bangthetable.com/BEMP |
The Property Council has renewed its call to reform Australia’s strategic planning and development control systems.
As Prime Minister Kevin Rudd recently declared:
“Our cities must have the best planning possible for the long term, including for the provision of infrastructure.
“… better metropolitan planning arrangements will help ensure consistent decision making, improve the efficiency of infrastructure investment and further contribute to productivity and economic growth.”
The PM has challenged his colleagues in the states and territories.
He wants clearer long-term thinking about the shape of our cities, backed by measurable performance targets and first class metropolitan co-ordination.
The PM has established a Major Cities Unit and a working party of all Australian governments to formulate a model strategic planning framework for the nation’s cities, which he wants operational across the country by July 2010.
The Property Council has suggested the Federal Government adopt a national competition policy approach to achieving the PM’s ambitions.
National Competition Policy (NCP) moved into high gear under the Keating Government in the mid 1990s, following the Hilmer Review.
After a series of Special Premiers Conferences, the states and territories agreed to restructure their public sector monopolies, to compete with the private sector on a more even basis and reform anti-competitive regulations.
In return, they received ‘competition payments’ from the Federal Government.
Some cynics describe competition policy as a bribe to do the right thing.
Whatever. The NCP project lifted national productivity and household incomes, reduced the price of family staples such as electricity and milk, and increased consumer power.
Some say NCP has helped Australia better withstand the battering winds of the GFC compared to other advanced nations.
The PM’s gung-ho approach to planning reform stems from a frustration well understood by Property Council members.
Private and public sector investment programs, including the Rudd Government’s stimulus spending, do not deliver their full economic, social and environmental benefits to Australian communities for two key reasons:
- States and territories lack comprehensive strategic planning, land use, infrastructure and transport frameworks
- Australia’s development control systems are archaic.
Admittedly, we’ve seen several states and territories reverse their abhorrence of strategic planning over the past few years.
Nevertheless, most existing metropolitan and regional plans suffer major weaknesses. In particular, they are not fully funded, lack clear policy goals and co-ordinated implementation programs that join-up government action.
As the Prime Minster recently discovered, even when bucket loads of money are made available, most Australian governments struggle to identify shovel-ready, value-for-money projects.
Poor strategic planning frameworks deliver accidental cities. The result is social dislocation, wasted investment and environmental externalities.
Archaic development controls undermine the value of nation and community building initiatives that deliver critical social infrastructure – schools, hospitals, affordable housing, utilities, transport and the like.
Dysfunctional planning processes result in ad hoc decisions, time delays, cost blow-outs and uncertainty. This undermines efforts to synchronise new capital investment with future community needs.
An NCP approach offers a proven model for motivating state, territory and local governments.
It comprises five key elements packaged in an inter-governmental agreement (IGA):
- A set of agreed framework principles
- KPIs that summarise measurable performance targets based on agreed reform priority categories
- A suite of incentives and penalties for implementing the agreed principles framework and KPIs
- Institutional arrangements for governing the implementation of the IGA, including an independent commission
- Assistance in shaping the policy content required to implement the principles framework and KPIs.
Under the Property Councils’ proposal, the non-Federal spheres of government would remain responsible and accountable for strategic planning and development control.
However, the NCP model allows the Federal Government to invigorate and guide much-needed reform.
In short, an NCP approach represents a classic methodology for modernising the Australian Federation.
The Property Council has helped develop several policy tools to support this proposal, which can be found on our website, www.propertyoz.com.au
Most recently, we reviewed development controls in all states and territories against the Development Assessment Forum’s (DAF) leading practice model.
As a result, we’ve proposed a reform action plan for states and territories that could be incorporated in an NCP-style incentive scheme.
In addition, the Property Council and our partners in the BEMP (Built Environment Meets Parliament) coalition have devised a draft set of strategic planning framework principles for urban Australian.
We believe these principles, which we’ll showcase in the October edition of Property Australia, provide the basis for reforming Australia’s planning and development systems.
For a sneak preview and an opportunity to comment on the strategic planning framework principles, please visit www.bangthetable.com/BEMP
On a recent trip to NSW, the PM asked why the smooth-running Sydney he witnessed during the 2000 Olympics couldn’t become the norm. His own answer was to call for smart strategic planning and better coordination. It’s an Olympian challenge that applies to all Australian governments.
Peter Verwer |
Friday, 4 September 2009 12:01 AM |
One Comment
