Standing Committee on State Development Sept 24, 2007

Standing Committee on State Development:
Inquiry into aspects of Agriculture in New South Wales
Monday September 24, 2007 – 11am

Parliamentary committees conduct hearings that are investigative in nature and endeavour to clarify and expand upon submissions made to parliament. A representative is called as witness to answer questions on the issue at hand and their evidence is most generally carried out in public hearings. Should private evidence be required or there be a question unable to be answered the witness is able to apply for a written or closed session.

As an extension of and complimentary process to State Parliament all information supplied is privileged and held in the same regard as all other formal Parliamentary proceedings, although from my perspective a Committee hearings atmosphere and proceedings were a lot more ordered and held in higher esteem. In the case of the hearing held on September 24, Richard John Pearson, Executive Director of Rural and Regional Planning was examined in regard to various aspects of agriculture in New South Wales. Parliamentary standing committee’s procedures by their very nature vary to those of a Question Time sitting and the discussion of agriculture’s contribution to the economy, the industry’s capacity and growth prospects and initiatives being implemented offers an example of how these proceedings are carried out.
As a general observation I found the committee hearing format to be highly informative in its in-depth explanation of issues and I found much more focus was placed on government initiatives and programs rather than attacks on the opposition. Witnesses are made accountable for their department’s activities and must provide thorough, informed discussion topics and explanations.

I will admit I am ignorant in all areas of agriculture and land rezoning and thus as previously mentioned, the experience was somewhat dense and confusing for me. However I must say the lack of shouting over one another (the most common activity I found in Question Time) and more detailed explanation meant I was educated on the topic... uni work teaching me something who would have thought?? Ok so I am no expert but it was a start.

The session opened with the Chair, The Hon A. Catanzariti welcoming those present and noting that ‘Committee hearings were not intended to provide a forum for people to make adverse reflections about others’ and that witnesses should avoid naming names. This was quite a turnaround from Question Time proceedings and one which I noted gave the process the integrity I originally expected from formal government procedure. Mr Pearson was then given the opportunity to give an opening statement before official questioning began.

The Department of planning’s initiatives in order to protect and ensure the continued growth of agriculture as an industry that creates 87, 000 jobs for NSW and in 2003-04 was worth $8.6 billion. These initiatives were significantly focused on non metropolitan areas particularly the Central West, Wollongong, and the north coast and hunter regions.

The translation of State planning and development means a framework has been put in place for these areas in an effort to fulfil a state wide strategic campaign and ensure unplanned growth is kept to a minimum and sustainable, productive change achieved, as a means to expand the industry with profitable and beneficial outcomes.

Johnston’s approach was methodical and structured to ensure the committee were clear on the foundation of the strategic plan and whilst customised to meet demands of various sectors, were introduced for the overall benefit of the state at large and the industry’s continued productivity. Supporting studies and documentation were offered and ‘tabled’ outlining recommendations, and previous research, indicating to me that the committee hearing process is more one of analysis and explanation rather than legislative action and bill amendment.

Then ensued specific questions from The Hon. Melinda Pavey and from the Chair, specifically focusing on Local Environment Plans, the role of regional councils and reporting system amendments that the committee proposed should be adopted. To the latter it was suggested that perhaps better time management and resource control could be taken advantage off should some control and responsibility be offset to regional powers. This was perhaps the first and only contentious issue of the hearing, being met with some derision on Johnston’s behalf, who defended his departments handling of the large number of applications and suggested that delays in approval were more a result of activity further down the line.

Hon. Micheal Veitch then posed questions to Johnston, addressing the clash between urban growth and redefining land use. Veitch supported his question by first offering a background on the issue to ensure his question was specific and relevant. His argument was that the department’s submission lacked the flexibility to introduce new initiatives and address this issue. Considering the growth of Sydney’s populations and increased expansion of housing estates on the fringes of the metropolitan area his question was in critical need of being addressed.
Johnston acknowledged room for amendments to current systems which to me suggested that standing committee hearings are a more productive exercise. The collective discussion of ideas, current processes and initiatives I observed proved to be a great benefit to the sitting and objectives .

The sittings closing stages focused on baseline situations and specific time management issues whereby report submission and questions on notice, to be answered by October 5, were ordered. The witness and Committee were dismissed at 12pm.