KEY ISSUES IN REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ON SEQ2001 PAPERS

The review was commissioned by SE Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, Business and Industry Reference groups of SEQ2001, and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning in order to establish: areas of commonality and disparity; priority of recommendations; and assess suggestions made in submissions. It was completed by Professor Trevor Grigg (Graduate School of Management, University of Queensland) in December 1993.

REVIEW PROCESS Submission were reviewed. Most supported the overall objective and vision of SEQ2001, though by their nature most tended to have something critical to say.

RPAG PROPOSALS Growth in the region creates pressures which require that it be managed or controlled. Growth management is preferred, which creates altered and enhanced role for Government, which raises questions about the private sector's role. Growth control is impractical, though environmental groups would like to see this. The proposal contains elements of both. Suggested ways to deal with this are: defining a preferred pattern of urban development; policies for resource and environment protection; and institutions for better co-ordination. This involves: greater Government roles; the need for wider perspective than local Governments; and the inadequacy of market forces. This directly challenges traditional mechanisms.

OVERVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS There is widespread agreement on the need to manage the resources of the region. Disagreements arise about preferred pattern of development and the proposed institutional arrangements. Many criticisms arose about method and data used to generate the preferred pattern (especially the lack of recognition of relationship between market determined land use and transport accessibility). Interventions should seek to use, not cut across, these forces. Cheap subsidised transport, for example, can lead to urban sprawl. History casts doubt on the validity of public interventions in creating 'growth centres'. Housing affordability is a key issue, and may be adversely affected by those concerned for environmental and social outcomes. There was no adequate consultation concerning implementation mechanisms, though the need for better means for co-ordination is widely accepted. Many were concerned about weakness in human service infrastructure, but unsure if the Regional outline Plan (ROP) properly dealt with it. Suggestions for growth management are based on existing structures whilst at the same time pointing out their weaknesses. Problems with past attempts at regional coordination were not explored. Political obstacles exist to long term services programs. Implementability is the strongest basis for concern, especially with respect to: funding; conflicts between sectoral and regional strategies; lack of credibility of preferred pattern of urban development as basis for a framework for growth; lack of any consideration of economic base; and location of the secretariat in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning.

SPECIFIC CONCERNS IN SUBMISSIONS Other concerns include: lack of consistency between 'Preferred Pattern' and 'Institutional Arrangements' and policy papers; timetable for finalising ROP is too short; difficulties in maintaining political will; public sector focus of proposals; and what the ROP actually is.

IMPLICATIONS SEEN BY CONSULTANT Many issues have been raised but real analysis which would allow a Preferred Pattern to be defined has not yet been done. The task must be more than town planning / urban development issue, and include economic and social concerns. State agencies have shown no orientation to take a regional view in the past and have statewide responsibilities. Financing of the proposals depends on a viable economic base which has not been addressed. Pricing options need to be kept open. Changes are proposed in responsibilities of various agencies but there may be no one to monitor their effectiveness or any guarantee that services program proposal will achieve the desired efficiencies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Achievements to date must not be allowed to stall. The draft preferred pattern for urban development should not be adopted until professional concerns about data accuracy and methods are resolved. A broadbrush spatial development vision should be defined, and conflicts between this and local government strategic plans resolved. Proposed environmental standards should be accepted, though ongoing refinement is needed. Indicative regional infrastructure programs should be derived to indicate magnitude of growth management task and resources needed. State agencies should have a leading role in this, but major analysis should be the responsibility of a Regional Management Bureau. Co-operation is overly relied upon to achieve co-ordination, and more consideration is needed of how non service infrastructure is to be managed and 'public' (as compared with 'public sector') accountability achieved. Any regional outline plan must be above politics. Consultation has achieved community consensus (except on the institutional arrangements, preferred patter and draft regional outline plan), but could be lost if development industry and local authority concerns are ignored. The proposed Regional Coordination Committee and Cabinets' Planning and Infrastructure Committee have key roles. A Regional Management Bureau should support the Committee but report directly to the Premier. Department of Housing Local Government and Planning would have too narrow a base. A Regional outline plan must deal with state and local budget coordination, by including social and economic issues. The regional Outline Plan must be linked to the realities of the region's economic base and development scenarios. Local Government must recognise State responsibilities at the regional level. A Regional outline Plan must be achievable, implementable, fundable and in the public interest. Significant changes over time must be deliberate and transparent. Changes for short term political reasons must be avoided. The plan must also recognise market forces, and that there are occasions where market forces produce undesirable outcomes. Government cannot ignore the market without significantly changing the nature of land ownership and management.