Illustration: Simon Bosch Mostly, planning in Sydney has done the reverse. Conceiving itself as nothing more than an apportioner of windfall gains to landholders, it has staunchly maximised private profit with barely a thought for the public. So the answer is not the knee-jerk removal of red-tape, leaving developers to guard the public interest. That can only be disastrous. The answer is good governance: first define the public good, then let developers deploy their considerable ingenuity within those clear constraints. Of course, definition is tricky. What is "public," after all, but an agglomeration of privates? And we do need cities built, so there are times when even massive new private development can further the public good – an airport, say, or when (as now) there's a supposed 100,000-dwelling shortfall. At such moments, like an eclipse of the moon, public and private slide over one another and become, apparently, one. During such eclipses, planning's temptation is always to open the gates and lie back like an old drunk with a speech bubble escaping its slobbery lips. "Go f'rit boys; whatever ya like. More the bloody merrier."

NSW Education Minister Rob Stokes said the federal government has no overarching narrative on population growth. Credit:Brook Mitchell Stokes steadfastly denies that any such urge underlies this week's changes, insisting, "we are not after headlong development of any kind". I want to believe it. I do. Stokes is a nice guy; intelligent, educated and less entirely callow than most of his political confreres. But bearing in mind that he has been Planning Minister for three of the most wanton and destructive years in Sydney's history – Westconnex, Darling Harbour, public housing redevelopment, the light rail developer-led destruction, Central-to-Eveleigh and the Bays Precinct, as well as the biggest and most sustained metro-wide housing boom ever – and all with barely a whisper of consultation, altruism or design conscience, there is no way round it. He's either disingenuous or ineffectual. Or both. All very well to do a Malcolm Fraser and get nice after the damage is done. (Oh how I wish I could've helped. Bow, scrape, hand-wring.) Why can't someone – anyone – in NSW politics do the right thing when it matters? The minister's amendments purport to make this a more civilised city while massively improving housing access. Will it happen? Consider four critical areas: consultation and transparency; independence of decision-making; design; housing affordability.

First, consultation. The 55-page explanatory document, declaring that "community has the right to be informed" it makes "participation" its first principle and will require councils and state planning agencies to have a "public participation plan" in place. And although it stops short of requiring authorities actually to take public opinion into account, it will require decision-makers to publish a "statement of reasons". All good. On the other hand, the Australian Financial Review reported on Monday that "details of the legislation were supplied ... on the condition no groups such as Greens and local councils would be approached for comment". Help me here. How exactly does this square with promises of "transparent processes" and "best-practice planning outcomes"? Two, independence. This is laudable, since we are rightly suspicious of political interference in planning decisions. But can "expert panels" – appointed and paid by those same politicians – actually deliver? As developer lobbyist Chris Johnson commented, "independent assessment panels with the right people selected could streamline development approvals". Right people. Well, precisely. After all it was the independent Planning Assessment Commission which last year wasted three days of public energy hearing objections to Packer's casino-grab of public foreshore, only to declare that the approval had been a done deal for years. Sorry, loves. As to design. The minister promises "design-led development", whatever that means. It sounds kinda refreshing but really just replaces the entire, noble 200-year tradition of NSW government architecture with an "umbrella policy". Much talk of excellence and outcomes, little hope of achieving either.

And so to housing, supply and affordability. Will the new plan deliver? Can it? Many assume that the more the cheaper. Not so. Urban housing experts University of Sydney's Professor Peter Phibbs and UNSW's Professor Bill Randolph tirelessly point out that housing is not a simple supply-demand equation like, for example, the banana market. Negative gearing and low interest rates encourage global investors, making demand essentially limitless, and the scourge of land-banking. So, even as we're 100,000 dwellings short, about 90,000 Sydney dwellings are vacant. For in truth no one with power – developers, investors, government – wants prices to fall. The minute they do, developers slow-build to control supply. The only answer to affordability, then, is inclusionary zoning – which, in requiring a percentage of affordable housing, always implies some government subsidy. Loading

Inclusionary zoning (at a pathetically low 5-10 per cent) made it into the Greater Sydney Commission's District Plans. Whether it benefits the Emma-and-Jeremys-of-Kellyville, though, will depend entirely on whether the government has spine. Call me a cynic. I'm betting no. Twitter: @emfarrelly