Recent local media reports have expressed alarm that Council was resolving to change or remove some of the optional proposed wording that had ecological emphasis.  One of the editors challenged me to clarify why I support such resolutions. The following was my reply to the editor although it wasn't fully published.

My view is that some of these optional (red) clauses are encompassed in the State’s compulsory ones or existing State legislation (i.e. EP&A , Native Vegetation, Catchment Management).  Some other optional clauses attempt to put more onerous obligations upon local residents than does the State, which I don’t believe councillors have a mandate from the electorate to do.
 
I believe the State compulsory clauses don’t get emotive or overreaching as the embellished red clauses do, because when read in combination with the ecological legislation, they embody powerful safeguards for ecological land use.  The State would not have come lightly to its plain speaking obligatory clauses before committing them to the LEP.  Is it reasonable to think the State left such matters of state significance unaddressed in their compulsory clauses with the hope that each and every NSW shire would cover them off effectively with optional clauses? That's not at all likely, is it.
 
The State doesn’t need flowery, verbose or duplicative text and I don't think we do either.  It adds nothing to the reader's clarity and understanding, and provides hooks for subjective rather than objective interpretation of the rules.  As soon as one begins to putting words into an LEP that are superfluous or subjective, they introduce the potential for conflict, dispute, waste and corruption.  In that situation, the LEP's credibility begins to wane and hinges on interpretations dé jour rather than stable objective measurement.  

 

The alarmist sector that most strongly promotes the red approach has a view that in effect boils down to, "you can't trust man, just look how he's mucked it all up".  I'm not in that man-hater camp. For sure there is ecological degradation here and globally, but this is certainly as much a reflection of the rush to ‘civilise’ the world and the limitations of past technologies, than it was malicious intent on the part of mankind.  Today is not yesterday, and we are all learning.  The solution to improving our ecology is not to time-travel us back to the Middle Ages and just let the planet overgrow with uneatable cellulose vegetation while billions of humans perish. The solution is to use the brains our creator gave us, to move forward and evolve utilising the lessons we have learned. 

Unlike some, I trust Nature and Mankind!  I have faith in our integrity and creativity!  Neither Nature or Mankind, nor human integrity or creativity should be suppressed if evolution is to progress; in fact it must be patently obvious that the opposite is requisite.  More unnecessary red tape,  more barriers to creativity, more attempts to stop anything from changing, will condemn us all to a deteriorating environment, ecology and civilisation. 

The position I express is not at all inconsistent with the one I went to the electorate with in September 2008.  I personally wrote to each and every elector in the shire and told them specifically what they could count on me for.  My Pledge and list of what I’m ‘For and Against’ is still open for all to see on this website.  I stated I would preserve people’s rights, cut red tape and use common sense, to name a few.  As a result, I am representing the people who gave me their vote just as I said I would and presumably as they want me to. Provided councillors are acting consistent with the platform they went to the electors with, those who criticise their approach to LEP policy are actually criticising the electorate who voted for them. The nine councillors represent 100% of the electorate and proportionately bring all their voices to the table.  Could this be any more obvious?