James O’Doherty: Liberals trying to appease preservationist and pro-developer lobbies
Opposition Leader Mark Speakman is walking a fine line between appeasing those angered by the state government’s density push and the need for more development.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The problem with sitting on the fence is that it can lead to a very painful fall. It can be even worse if you are straddling that fence with one foot either side.
That is the position in which Liberal Leader Mark Speakman finds himself.
At the same time that Speakman is trying to be pro-housing, he is also advocating against development.
When push comes to shove, he cannot be both.
Even some in Speakman’s own party do not quite know where their leader stands.
Premier Chris Minns’ density push in established areas of Sydney has exposed deep divisions in the Liberals.
Those in favour of development argue that the Liberals should be the party of supply and development. Senator Andrew Bragg added himself to that list on Thursday, taking to social media to call on his party to “call out NIMBYism for the poison it is”.
His intervention could be interpreted as nothing else than a direct rebuke of Speakman’s planning spokesman Scott Farlow, who launched an extraordinary bid in state parliament to torpedo the Minns government’s plan for higher density housing around transport hubs.
Farlow wants parliament to be able to abolish so-called Transport Oriented Development (TOD) sites, which would allow for apartment blocks of up to six storeys around almost 40 railway stations.
He argues that scrapping the development zones would allow councils to develop their own plans to build more housing that fits in with their communities.
Farlow, and Wahroonga MP Alister Henskens, have been railing against the TOD plan, arguing that the government has unfairly imposed new planning rules on councils with little consultation.
The problem with that argument is that 12 of 13 councils in which the TOD sites sit all negotiated bespoke arrangements with the state government on behalf of their residents.
The only council who failed to reach an agreement was Ku-ring-gai, quickly emerging as ground zero for NIMBYism, which happens to be the area Henskens himself represents.
Farlow’s attempts to scuttle the TOD sites was also criticised by none other than Stuart Ayres, a former deputy liberal leader, now the CEO of Urban Development Institute of Australia NSW.
Ayres said the TOD sites were “critical” to increasing housing supply.
“NSW is in the midst of a housing supply and feasibility crisis,” he said.
“Parliamentarians should be putting citizens first and working together to ensure there are more places for people to call home.”
On Wednesday, Speakman tried to argue that he was both in favour of more housing but opposed to rules that would increase density.
“The best way to do it is give councils targets, tell them that’s what they’ve got to meet, and if they don’t meet them within a reasonable period, then the state will step in,” Speakman told the ABC.
That is exactly how we got into this problem in the first place.
Sluggish councils dragging the chain on approvals and failing to meet housing targets are partly to blame for the lack of available supply.
So, too, is the beleaguered planning department, which forces developers to wade through reams of red tape.
As I wrote last week, newly-released housing targets are only the start of the solution. Meeting them will require a heroic effort from the state government, local councils, and developers.
Scrapping planning rules allowing for greater density around public transport hubs would send a chilling effect through the construction industry that has been crying out for certainty about where it can build.
After his backflip on migration (remember when Speakman warned Australia could be invaded if we do not pursue “significant” migration growth?), the Liberal Leader is now trying to pirouette on housing supply.
This has not gone unnoticed in his own party.
One view is that the Opposition should just sit back and hold the government to account in three years if it fails to do anything to fix the crisis.
Another is that the Coalition should back-in housing reforms in an acknowledgment of the crisis Sydney is facing.
The third — that being promoted by Farlow and Henskens — is that the Premier’s plan to build up established parts of Sydney will be politically toxic among residents who do not want to lose their backyards.
Speakman cannot hold all of these positions at the same time. He needs to pick a side.
Do you have a story for The Daily Telegraph? Message 0481 056 618 or email tips@dailytelegraph.com.au
How union’s attempts to hold the city to ransom went off the rails
In pushing the wages dispute to breaking point, the RTBU has now lost all bargaining power it may have had to secure a better deal, writes James O’Doherty
The alarming truth about Trump’s shot at Zelensky
Vladimir Putin is the dictator responsible for the war in Ukraine, but not according to Donald Trump. Tom Minear argues there is a worrying reason for his offensive crack on Volodymyr Zelensky.