Labor’s Harbour foreshore plans betray its philosophical roots
March 11th, 2007
Any move to restrict public access to Sydney Harbour in favour of ‘rich boys with their floating toys’ is the clearest demonstration of how badly the Labor Party has lost its way and abrogated its philosophical roots.
Ports Minister Joe Tripodi’s move to weaken controls over foreshore development on Sydney Harbour does exactly this. It all but undoes the 2002 ‘Sharing Sydney Harbour’ initiative of the Carr Government.
A fundamental part of that initiative was The Regional Environment Plan (REP) for the harbour which has very clear objectives, including these clauses:
(b) the public good has precedence over the private good whenever and whatever change is proposed for Sydney Harbour or its foreshores,
(c) protection of the natural assets of Sydney Harbour has precedence over all other interests.
The REP was given real teeth via the powers of Landowner’s Consent vested in NSW Maritime.
Currently, NSW Maritime must apply REP principles when Landowner’s Consent is requested for a proposed development application (DA).
If NSW Maritime refuses consent, the DA cannot then proceed to the next relevant authority, for example a municipal council.
It is a strong, accountable two-tier procedure which can stop inappropriate developments early in the process, especially as refusal of Landowners’ consent is not subject to appeal.
However, without explanation or consultation, Joe Tripodi wants to give NSW Maritime ‘discretion’ to ignore REP principles when granting landowners consent. Put another way, owner’s consent could not be refused on the grounds of REP provisions.
This would apply especially where another government department is making the application, turning NSW Maritime into a rubber stamp.
This has a very similar smell to Frank Sartor’s notorious 3A planning laws which give him unchecked powers to seize control of developments and override community and environmental concerns in favour of big developers.
Another REP principle that could be ignored requires that a foreshore structure have a DIRECT functional relationship with the existing adjoining land use. This prevents, for example, the building of commercial boat storage hanging off an industrial site or a public reserve.
The government’s new guidelines - significantly - remove the word ‘direct’, turning the clause into a lawyer’s breakfast.
Sydney Harbour is a national and international treasure and to put its foreshores at risk for the benefit of wealthy private interests would be unforgivable. The harbour is much more than a playground for the rich.
