Commentators on the failure to progress of last weeks motion from the Hon Charles Smiths to the legislative Council to discuss Third Party Appeal Rights TPAR’s are misguided if trying to dissect any particular arguments raised against TPAR’s in last weeks parliamentary debate which are, according to the Liberals, a Communist curse, though to paraphrase the Hon Charles Smith’s comments it is quite unclear if any sort of appeal right is actually much of a `thing` in Communist regimes…
…regardless, the pertinent and cross party motive underlined by this debate is to ensure that only those rich enough to protect their property rights should have access to those protections in this our enlightened 21st century liberal democracy, and developers of course… I have to admit that this was not to my knowledge a founding principle of Pericles, nor for that matter Saint-Simon, Marx or Lenin.
Yet, `equality under the law for those who can afford it` is WA Labor Party Policy.
Yes it is, argue all you like, you will still be wrong, this is current Labor policy, this is current Liberal policy, the debate continued so far as to inform of a tacit pact between the two major parties to keep this status quo , and, if it matters it’s a Shooters & Fishers Party policy as well.
Some would like to congratulate those Red Commie’s the Greens for their support … but given their support usually guarantees Liberals to vote by fiat to the contrary, it’s probably help that we could do without, not that anyone of sound mind realistically expected any support from a Liberal Party who move slowly to reform, fettered in this case not only by philosophy but also by pockets weighed down from fundraising efforts of the development and building industry.
Labor Party Policy : equality for those who can afford it.
The Supreme Court is the only way for a third party (that’s you & me) in WA to ensure `procedural fairness and natural justice` more Communist claptrap? – in Planning Decisions in WA. This is as expensive as it sounds, in fact it’s even more expensive than that if we mistakenly accept the common assumption that in Court the winners take it all. In a Judicial review, which is how TPAR’s would and should be addressed you might at best only receive a portion of your significant costs back.
Lets not consider here the cost of a potential loss because even a ‘win’ in the Supreme Court can still cost you $50K – and , given the woeful state of WA’s planning system the loser can, and probably will – simply start a new planning application, resubmit – rinse and repeat, seriously financed developers can always adopt the strategy of victory via financial osmosis – & that’s assuming the Planning Minister does not get in first and autocratically approve an application. South Perth’s Bleeding Heart anyone?
Developers of course are allowed the luxury of low cost administrative appeals, third parties (the vast majority of us) are offered only the Supreme Court, assuming we can afford it.
This IS as the Hon Charles Smith noted an erosion of the rules of law that liberal democracies are built upon.
BIMBY’s not NIMBY’s
Buoyed by the hypocrisy of our elected representatives I will now ignore my own opening advice regarding commentary on the logical fallacies peddled in the debate by Liberal and Labor members and an off target Shooter and Fisher whose aim was pulling a little to far to the right.
Labor and Liberal members spent much of the debate accusing the supporters of this motion of being anti developer/development, regurgitating numerous fantasy scenarios where cobblers and rat catchers would soon be out of work when we `stop` development – like recent posturing that same sex marriage would lead to people marrying livestock or cars , of course like such bestial nuptials nobody actually wants or asked for development or construction to stop, not even a whisper.
Nobody said don’t build, nobody said don’t develop, nobody said or suggested don’t move forward, absolutely nobody …OK possibly the Greens if they had their way which is why they are such anathema to the Liberals, but stopping development, builders, developers, cobblers and rat catchers are arguments sans foundation constructed entirely from straw.
Better In My Back Yard:
Despite the rhetoric and dishonest misdirection – third parties are asking no more of our representatives than to ensure that decision makers simply follow the bloody rules ,
That, in a nutshell is all third parties are asking for – for Local Government Authorities , the DAP, the WAPC the Planning Minister and Premier to follow the bloody rules … not third party rules, not NIMBY rules but their own bloody rules, rules frustratingly – often created in conjunction with the community, usually with the support of the majority of those communities – rules and guidelines that to one extent or another they have supported or sometimes accepted as fair compromise – the simple problem is just that nobody follows them, nor, and this is the important bit – is anyone required to assuming you ignore `due regard`which DAP’s, DevelopmentWA the WAPC and the Minister do on a regular basis.
Away and **** yourself:
Sorry but that is called for since it is exactly what the community is being told, along with the Commie name calling it was disgracefully purported during debate that the community had never supported any development…ever – this is shameful absolute and utterly contemptuous tripe.
In the first place the vast majority of development continues on unmolested by third parties and secondly the community, as previously noted do take part in strategic planning consultation… only to see the planning controls and guidelines that are agreed upon, that they mistakenly assumed they were a part of after extensive, expensive and comprehensive consultation – to be imperiously and judiciously ignored.
Despite wanting to avoid them, examples provide context… in the Scarborough Beach Master Plan , 10’s if not 100’s of thousands of dollars were spent in consulting the community to set – among many other things – height limits that everyone can enjoy. The results of this comprehensive consultation ? a COMMUNITY SUPPORTED limit of 12 -18 stories, the outcome ? – 44 and 38 stories approved by the MRA,
The MRA, now DevelopmentWA will probably approve another 25 storeys for the Woolworths White Sands Development and 9, 15 and 24 storeys for the Karrinyup Shopping Centre, a development unconcerned by any site specific strategic planning controls – the closest being the Karrinyup Regional Centre Guidelines which provide for arguably 6 storeys , a locality changing development which is not covered by its own Activity Centre/Structure or even Local Development Plan. These developments can not – according to the applicable planning instruments be approved – but they will be in one non conforming form or another.
TPAR’s will eat themselves:
If decision makers and responsible authorities worked within the rules and guidelines – even allowing for some honest wriggle room – there would be no need for TPAR’s.
TPAR’s should make themselves redundant, that is to say with effective and procedurally fair (to all parties) TPAR’s, the industry would end up with little choice but self-regulate, logically leaving TPAR’s as a seldom used pathway.
Of course both liberal and Labor are on the surface convinced that TPAR’s are impossible to implement despite every other state managing to do so, perhaps our Eastern cousins are simply cleverer than us?, or to keep up with the quality of the parliamentary debate perhaps that is why no major development has occurred in the Eastern States for nearly 50 years since the introduction of TPAR’s, and perhaps that’s why WA has more houses, apartments and high rise than they do – a little known fact!
That stream of thought was addressed by the Hon Alison Xamon but given comrades that I have been working under what I now understand to be a clearly Communist manifesto for some time I will unfairly withhold credit.
Several other logical fallacies were put forward by both Labor and Liberal to support suggestions that development would come to a halt in WA with the introduction of TPAR’s – I suppose in the same way crime stopped virtually overnight when the first police services were created in the UK in the late eighteenth century.
Most modern scholars agree that quite probably, ne’er-do-wells and vagabonds in general, unsure what the point of crime and general naughtiness was if the courts were going to stop them, decided it was all too hard and so gave up their bad ways with such enthusiasm that there has been virtually zero crime since the introduction of the modern Police Force in the UK, another little known fact. – at least it’s as factual as much of last week’s debate.
One last bit of caps lock before I wrap up, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), there are NO SAT APPEALS FOR THIRD PARTIES , please ignore the Hon. Ricky Mazza who does not – or chooses not to understand how the SAT works. The only way a third party can be attached to a SAT hearing is if the development has already been refused OR has been approved with conditions, in the latter case only the conditions will be on the table, in no case can a Third party initiate a SAT appeal, period, unless perhaps the Honourable member thought that a developer might in a fit of conscience appeal against it’s own success ?
Developers are not the problem, decision makers are.
This is the meat of the problem, this is what all the misdirection from our elected representatives is actually about.
It is fair to say that community rage is often initially directed at the perceived temerity and greed of developers, when in reality they are actually the second least culpable of all, like all of us they are evolving to meet a changing and difficult world and like the parable of the scorpion and the fox, are simply doing what is in their nature.
Consider a leprechaun walking around with a pot of gold advertising to all that anyone can take as much gold as they want – you just know you better be first in line, or at worst second behind a Buddhist, and even then – be prepared for Clive Palmer to take you to court for his fair share.
Developers do not make planning decisions,
… your Local Government Does, DAP’s do, the WAPC and MRA/DevelopmentWA does, your Planning Minister does – they and they alone adjudicate on WA’s planning laws, from legally armoured comfortable desks staffed and overseen by the self interested. Industry insiders whose planning expertise is considered vital in the newspeek rationales that mansplain their very existence yet appear prima facie to be infinitely gullible when confronted with the turd polishing exercises of Town Planners, Design Review Panels and the kerr-ching of rate revenue.
Most of these decision makers other than the Planning Minister are unelected – apart from some Local Councillors but only `some` given most LGA planning decisions are made under delegated authority by planning officers and CEO’s.
There is little point expanding further on some of the logical fallacies espoused by our elected representatives because 1) as originally suggested what’s the point, and 2) nearly none of the members of our purported liberal democracy who spoke in last weeks debate actually believe them anyway, they perhaps explain my favourite bit of Paine…
“For when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer”
Thomas Paine
They do not for one second believe their own rhetoric , we know this, and they know we know , and they know we know they know – etc, but more importantly, they know that with cross party support for this medievil justice system there is stuff all we can do about it and can continue unabated to instead misrepresent and mislead with prejudice via illogical arguments that would not defeat a child.
Labor of course, riding on a COVID high (and deservedly so on that score) can do whatever else they want under cover of COVID, and if we still had an opposition, well Labor are implementing development policies that the Liberals have been having wet dreams about for years but never thought for one second they could get away with – could you imagine the socialist uproar?
………………………
The Liberal Democrats along with the Greens supported the Western Australia Party’s Hon Charles Smith’s motion which was lost 20 – 6.
