After regularly giving the major parties bollockings for micro-policies, it’s a refreshing change that the Liberal document is reasonably detailed. It’s perhaps indicative of the relative ability levels on the Coalition front bench, given that planning and mental health (two areas in which comprehensive policies have been released), are the responsibilities of Matt Guy and Mary Wooldrige respectively. But on its merits? It’s a detailed, comprehensive strategy to pave paradise, put trees in tree museums and put up parking lots all the way to Ballarat, Bendigo, Seymour and Traralgon. It’s a recipe for the Houston of the South.

The Greens policy plans to place a permanent urban growth boundary around Melbourne – and, interestingly, major regional cities. By contrast, the Liberal plan will:

• Seek to have 20 to 25 years worth of land supply in growth areas for Melbourne, Geelong and other major regional cities across Victoria;
• Conduct a biennial audit of land supply in Melbourne’s and Geelong’s growth areas to ensure adequate supply exists
• Establish a new structured process for the biennial review of the UGB in growth areas, with clear timeframes and a transparent process
• Work with relevant municipalities for the immediate assessment of logical inclusions in Melbourne’s UGB to facilitate billions of dollars worth of much-needed development-ready housing projects.

The coalition’s document notes – rightly – that the current government does cave on a regular basis on the existing UGB. But their solution is an “urban growth boundary” that is no boundary at all.

That said, the coalition’s policy does provide something an escape valve for the constant battles over urban infill development – if you’re building houses from Ballan to Nar Nar Goon, it might satiate developers enough to keep the burghers of Booroondara blissfully unaffected. The Greens policy calls for increased development density, particularly around transport hubs. Great, in principle. But given all the angst in the inner suburbs about high-rise development – or any change at all that upsets some amphormously-defined “character” – how do they expect to actually achieve this?

In handing down its report, the inquiry said it found no corrupt activity in relation to the land.

“It’s correct to say that we did not find any corrupt activity in that regard,” inquiry chair and Nationals MP Jenny Gardiner said.

However, the inquiry, which included two days of public hearings, more generally put the spotlight on the potential influence of property developers in the planning system.

As such, the report calls for wide-ranging reform of NSW election and campaign funding laws and in particular, tighter regulation of political donations.

This follows Premier Rees promises at the the eventful annual State Labor conference, held last week, to revamp how Government deals with lobbyists and developers.

The committee made eleven recommendations reinforcing the Premier’s earlier pledge to reform the system, and that, “….the Premier adopt the model for funding of the NSW electoral scheme proposed by the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding, and implement the Committee’s recommendations in full.”

These include the banning of political donations by corporations and other organisations, a cap on individual donations and election spending, timely disclosures of donations and election spending, plus tougher policing and penalities for non-compliance.

In a dissenting opinion, Greens MLC Sylvia Hale singled out planning minister Kristina Keneally for having a fundamental misunderstanding of the Westminster system.

New South Wales, however, does not operate under a presidential system. Had the Minister been more conscious of this fact, she may have been more mindful in the execution of her parliamentary and legal responsibilities and less inclined to countenance the activities of developers and their lobbyists, activities that have undermined the integrity of, and public confidence in, the planning and development system of this State. Ministerial indifference to a department’s day-to-day affairs, its procedures and employment policies, may actually subvert the provision to ministers of “fearless and frank” advice.

However, this chapter isn’t entirely closed, with questions remaining to be answered by Labor Party mover and shaker and lobbyist Graham Richardson on his involvement.

Mind you, it seems that wind farms are also suffering persistent NIMBY problems in the UK.

If climate change is an emergency – and it’s pretty clear that it is – haven’t we reached the point where the concerns of local communities are sometimes going to have to come second to the pressing need to find energy sources that don’t fry the planet?

I totally reject the sort of intellectual superiority of some “planning experts” that would dictate an inflexible planning solution. People deserve choice. If they want to live in tram-track suburbs, good planning gives them the choice to do that. If growing suburbs on the fringe of the city meet their needs, then there must be appropriate supply. Too often the debate is hijacked either by a cultural snobbery against growth suburbs on the city fringe, or a self-serving not-in-my-backyard-ism against development in established areas.

I’m all for an honest and continuing debate about how best to manage Melbourne and Victoria’s growth. But I won’t stand for cultural snobbery and NIMBY-ism being dressed up as public debate.

There is undoubtedly an element of truth to Madden’s critique – there is a considerable element of NIMBYism in the opposition to suburban infill development, and at least some inner-suburbanites like myself do regard the “growth suburbs” as a bit of a cultural desert that we couldn’t imagine living in. But – aside from the question as to whether NIMBYs do in fact deserve some consideration in preserving the way of life they want, just as the outer-suburbanites who want the McMansion and two big cars do – in his cultural swipes Madden ignores the more substantive critiques of the government’s half-hearted approach to urban planning.

Whether he likes it or not, those “growth suburbs” are eating away at more and more land on Melbourne’s western fringes, some of which were previously native grasslands – a not particularly sexy, but important and threatened ecosystem. The surburbs themselves, despite slightly increased urban density compared to the middle-ring suburbs of the 1950s, are too spread-out to support decent public transport. Furthermore, as well as being inherently hard to support with public transport, the developers don’t tend to design them to be cycleable or walkable, so even for relatively short local journeys people pile into the Prado – drop the kids off, pop down to the shops, you name it. Not to mention the environmental costs of heating, cooling, lighting, and to some extent watering the McMansions that result from continuing land releases – ever-improving efficiency standards keep losing to ever-increasing house sizes, despite shrinking family sizes.

If Madden wants to make his case, he might consider actually responding to the more substantial critiques of the government’s policy, rather than an easy slam against inner-suburban yuppies like myself.

Whatever else he did in his long career – as usual, the Wikipedia has more – it’s almost impossible to imagine Sydney without that building. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to imagine an Australia without it. It’s driven Melburnians mad for decades trying to find a similarly iconic building (a quest that has been thankfully abandoned).

Hopefully, the process of renovating the Opera House, which was proceeding with the cooperation of Utzon and his son, will result in a building whose interior – and acoustics – match its astonishing exterior. As a further memorial, perhaps state governments (and this seems to apply particularly to the NSW state government) can find a way to encourage better architecture, not just for icon buildings but across the board. Utzon, whose career also included work on low-cost housing in Denmark, would surely approve.