Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Most people in the community accept that during times of crisis governments need to centralise some key decision-making and quickly implement laws to ensure the health, safety and security of their citizens. They also accept that governments need to have greater flexibility so that they can act quickly. As we saw at the height of the pandemic last year, governments across Australia moved quickly to do things and make laws in response to the unprecedented threat. Bills were often put before parliament with little time for the usual scrutiny we would expect from the parliamentary process, and significant decision-making powers were given to executive arms of government.

Over a year on from the outbreak of COVID-19 our world is still responding to the challenges of the pandemic, and there are valid reasons why governments still need to have the capacity to make and take quick and responsive decisions and actions. But it is also time for us to give closer scrutiny to laws passed at the height of the pandemic, particularly those that centralised decision-making powers and removed appropriate layers of scrutiny. We need to do this to ensure that those laws have not outlived their need, or worse—that they become the new normal without second thought. It is important to do this because, while governments are often quick to centralise power during a crisis and to remove checks and balances, they can be sluggish to remove the power and restore the appropriate levels of scrutiny.

An example of a pandemic related law which deserves extra scrutiny is the amendment made to the WA Planning and Development Act in the middle of 2020. The amendments to the act were passed by the state government to assist with the COVID-19 recovery and speed up approval times for shovel-ready projects. The amendments introduced a process which allows property developers to bypass local councils and have developments which are deemed to be of state significance to be referred to the newly created State Development Assessment Unit and ultimately considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The referral process is by the Premier on the recommendation of the Minister for Planning.

I'm sure that there are some in my community who would welcome the opportunity to completely bypass the local government planning approval processes, because it is true these can at times be drawn out, expensive and frustrating. However, there are some key points about this legislation which are concerning in the context of power centralisation and insufficient checks and balances.

The first is that there is no precise definition of what amounts to a 'development of state significance'. The only clarity is that the proposed developments must have an estimated value of more than $20 million in Perth's metro area or more than $5 million in regional areas. These are not particularly high monetary thresholds, and data from the WAPC shows that the applications in the metro area range actually started at the $20 million price range. The range of projects which have been deemed to be of state significance include apartment buildings, restaurants and aged-care facilities.

The second major concern is that, in designing this faster process for approval, it is the local context, the local people and environment, which is most impacted. It is true that the WAPC has to have due regard for the local planning framework, and local councils and local people can make submissions and attend the SDAU. But the main mandate of the SDAU is to undertake a more strategic assessment to consider non-planning matters and benefits that can be delivered for the state. In essence, local voices are silent.

Arguably the greatest flaw in the legislation is that, under these new powers, local councils and community members cannot appeal WAPC decisions to the state administrative tribunal, effectively removing an accessible check-and-balance option. What makes this of even greater concern is that property developers do have the rights of appeal if they're not happy with the decision that's been made.

Many people in Curtin have expressed their concerns about this process, and they are right to be concerned. As at 13 June 2021, of the 20 applications which have been or are at the SDAU, four have been located in Curtin. This amounts to 20 per cent of the total applications, a fact which is extraordinary given that Curtin is only 98 square kilometres and the entire state is 2.5 million square kilometres.

While the early worries of COVID-19 may have provided justification for changes to be made to the development approval, I would argue that the level of power this change gives to an unelected and unaccountable body and the complete diminution of the legitimate interests of local bodies and people means that what was arguably tolerable no longer is.

See this speech in context