Pearson, you little beauty!

I attended the Committee Hearing on the 24th September at State Parliament in Sydney. The Committee for State Development was holding an inquiry into the future and viability of NSW Agriculture. Being from a rural area myself, I think that the management of rural development is an extremely important issue. The hearing looked into the problems that Agriculture may face in the future with the growing trend of urbanisation and the initiatives that can be developed to further assist in its growth. These strategies are trying to improve the economy of rural communities by undertaking subdivision and encouraging settlement of new residents and businesses.

The Chairperson for the hearing was The Hon. A. Catanzariti. At the beginning of the hearing the chair took the opportunity to explain what is expected of the participants in terms of behaviour and order. I thought this was perhaps a good idea as is Question Time I always manage to miss this part (even if they have it all) and clearly they need a bit of this behaviour and order.
The Committee witness for the hearing was Richard Pearson, the Executive Director for Rural and Regional Planning, is actually from the NSW Department of Planning. The purpose of this committee witness is basically to be a spokesperson for the councils of NSW to explain matters in which the committee have questions. In Pearson’ s opening statement he outlined what he was going to be talking about as well as thanking the government for this opportunity. What really struck me was his passion for the subject. No doubt you do not get to the level he has in has area by not being passionate, but in general I was amazed at his eager and confidence.
However I was a little surprised he told the committee to look for themselves on the department website for regional strategies. I thought he would at least provide a few statistics on these strategies to wet the committee’s appetite and then perhaps direct them to the website for further information.

The use of jargon in this hearing initially confused me. Contrary to my hopes, this hearing was not exempt from the parliamentary jargon dilemma I continually face in this public affairs subject. This jargon included Pearson’s use of words such as ‘SEPP’. Obviously these committee hearings are not meant to be viewer-friendly.

Although the topic was initially of interest to me I must admit I did start nod off until I heard the word Bathurst, and immediately came to. He was using the town as an example of how the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) would be in the same format but have regional differences in controls as opposed to say areas like Tweed. The way he explained it was obvious as the two different areas would obviously need different controls as the two area’s main industries differ greatly.

When topics were discussed such as the Central West rural lands inquiry in providing advice and a way forward to resolving the issue of rural subdivision in the Central West and its potential to impact on agriculture, it makes me a little sad. Sad in the fact that the thought of rural subdivision means that some little farmer that has built his land up over many years through sheer hard work and hardships and has to sub divide his land just because he lives close to town. On the other hand, the fact that this land has to be subdivided because of the growing population in these rural towns makes me look on the bright side and have hope for these rural communities. And this is the attitude I think that Pearson would like rural communities to have, to accept change and embrace it.

Committee hearings are an essential part of the democratic process as it is a good chance to set the record straight and answer any questions the committee has in the topic. It is a direct way of having these questions answered rather than going through various secretaries and bureaucracy to get one answer.

This topic particularly interests me because being from regional NSW and having the life plan of eventually moving back, I care about how such regional development is managed. It is good to see people care about the country for once (by the way, the recent announcement for the $300 million for drought assistance to farmers by the Howard government is long overdue but greatly appreciated).

Also the point Pearson makes about “needing to better educate tree changers and people moving to rural areas about farming and what it means” proves to be close to the heart with my recent internship at ‘The Tree and Sea Change Expo’ at Rosehill Racecourse. Also known as Country Week, it tries to encourage urban residents to see the advantages of living in regional areas such as lower housing and living costs, lower restrictions on water, and more time with the family. Although it does not give people the access to the disadvantages of living in the country. Listening to Pearson gave me another way to think about the situation – the necessity of educating city people on the less-appealing issues of a tree change and help them before they make such a life-changing decision. Eg. Goulbourn council providing booklets on what issues a land purchaser should consider before moving to a rural area.

I find it quite intriguing that there is only one speaker as a representative for the Rural and Regional Planning Office. I would have thought if there were two or three with specific topics they specialised in, I guess they could speak more comprehensively than one on all the subjects. Although, this may cause confusion and clutter in the hearing.

We do see a little humour or I guess you could call it sarcasm from The Hon. Melinda Pavey towards Pearson. I suppose it wouldn’t be a parliamentary activity without a little sarcasm. On several occasions Pavey interrupts Pearson and asks him to repeat what he had already explained and asked him if it was true.

In conclusion, although this was more ordered than question time, I don’t think I enjoyed the show as much.