The term “revolving door problem” is applied to the issue
of poachers who turn gamekeepers, and vice versa. This usually relates to people
employed by private corporations who then go to work for regulatory bodies or
public institutions, and maybe even flip back out into the private sector from
time to time. Some even have the chance to act as a free-lance consultant while
holding a salaried role within a public institution.
Say, for
example, working with the WAPC to define the requirements for a “liveable neighbourhood” and then working for a developer to push plans for a
liveable neighbourhood through Council.
Are we all comfortable
with that?
Or do some
of us see how it just might create a bias towards possibly framing the
requirements in a way that the development corporation would like them, rather than how the members of the community, who haven’t been asked at all, would actually like to live?
Does this
really matter?
It certainly
seemed to matter in the case of ENRON, and Lehmann Brothers, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, and many other examples. All major financial frauds involve some failure of implementation of adequate controls. In some cases this is more blatant than in others, but somewhere along the line the regulator has cut a little slack for the corporation, to the detriment of the society as a whole.
ENRON had a corporate
motto – “Ask Why?”
But
obviously not enough of their employees actually did ask why? Or possibly when
they received an answer written in weasel they were too shy, or too lacking in
confidence, or too bullied, or too whatever, to demand a more sensible answer.
But it was
an excellent motto, Ask Why?
We should
all be encouraged to ask why?
And in the
case of statutory planning we are entitled to ask why there is apparently no quarantine
period for urban planning professionals wishing to move between public and private
sector?
This is
important, not because we are accusing anyone of wrongdoing, or we lack the
capacity to trust, but because we know that intellectual property and insider
knowledge are business assets that must be ring fenced. If decisions are to be
made fairly and in accordance with the spirit of the legislative framework then
there cannot be any doubt about who the decision makers are representing.
Without the
clear boundaries that should exist between public and private interests in land
development there is a presumption that the “little
people” will lose out to the corporate bullies. We need to have confidence
that when our shire planning staff make recommendations they are clearly working for
us.
Currently we have no confidence that the plans being approved for Karridale will benefit anyone but the two development corporations involved.
Ask Why?