Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Use of Vacant Land) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:48): I seek leave to move that this bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

Mr ODENWALDER: On behalf of the Minister for Urban Development, I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I want to make it clear that I move this bill a second time in order to vote against it, in order to bring the bill alive in the house to vote against it.

Mr Telfer: You have changed your mind.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, to vote against it and remove it from the Notice Paper. I want to be absolutely clear: I do not support this bill. The government does not support this bill, and I urge all members to vote against it.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:49): I rise to speak against this abomination of a bill that has found its way here with the support of the Malinauskas Labor government through the Legislative Council just a few weeks ago. So here it is on the Notice Paper, this bill that would provide for the compulsory lease of land at the whim of the minister or a council for an undetermined period, and with a prohibition against any form of rent or other compensation being paid to the owner of said private land.

It is an abomination of a bill and that it has found its way through any part of this parliament is cause for a shiver to run up the spines of all South Australians. Just to make this really clear, bringing it close to home, I was visiting, as I do from time to time, a full-hall gathering at our local retirement village in Stirling at Sevenoaks, one of the great retirement villages in our state, full of wonderful people who have spent their lives making a contribution to our local area and across the state.

To be in the room with that group this time last week and to hear the fear that they had for what might become of various parts of the open space in and around the Sevenoaks village just brought it home to me that when we talk about the basic rights with private property that have underpinned the development of land, community, interaction between individuals for the nearly two centuries of South Australia's proud history, we are here in 2025, having to debate a bill that has been brought here by Malinauskas Labor supporting what, to be fair to the mover in another place, was not even of a character that the mover in the other place thought was going to pass muster. I think we have that on the public record.

The Hon. Rob Simms in another place has told South Australians that this bill is not worthy of passing the parliament, but that was not good enough for the Malinauskas Labor government. It thought, 'Right. No, we will support this,' and here we are dealing with a bill that would compulsorily deprive a private owner of their use and enjoyment of their own land. This amendment would sit directly alongside the longstanding provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. Just to compare those two spells out what an abomination of an arrangement this would be.

People are aware of compulsory acquisition. They are aware of it in the context of the state, and they are aware of it in the context of the federal government as well. Of course, as all of us can recite, when it comes to the compulsory acquisition of land in the federal context, we have The Castle as our benchmark and the requirement that land that is to compulsorily be acquired is acquired on just terms and only in the most extraordinary of circumstances.

Even at the state level, the requirements for compulsory acquisition include the relevant minister being satisfied as to the reasonable necessity of doing so and only on the advice of those expert in the department as to that necessity. There is no such provision in this compulsory lease arrangement, which goes out of its way to say all you need is the minister, whoever that might be—we are presuming it is the super minister, but we have not heard from the super minister in this debate—who just forms a view as to the appropriateness of this compulsory lease, or a council.

I expect this is going to come as news to those in the leadership of the four councils that are in some part comprising the electoral district of Heysen, the dominant one being the Adelaide Hills Council and also the councils of Mount Barker, Onkaparinga and Alexandrina. They are all going to be empowered to form a view about the taking of a compulsory lease for no rent on private property anywhere throughout the nearly thousand square kilometres of Heysen.

The Adelaide Hills is home to some of the most beautiful open space that this state knows about. It sends a shudder down all of our spines to think that someone, a minister or council, might decide that some of that open space, privately owned, is not being used sufficiently and that it is time to just take a compulsory lease for who knows how long at no rent from the person who is hapless enough to own it and be coming into the less than good graces of the relevant person.

Just so we are in no doubt, let's spell it out. It is a short bill. Clause 2 provides for this infamous what would be new section 243A in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. It says, 'if a designated entity is satisfied', whatever that means, that the owner of land is unwilling or unable to undertake development to use it to the satisfaction of the relevant minister or council, because the designated entity, we learn, is the minister charged with responsibility for this provision or a council, and they form a view—they do not need to be satisfied even as to the necessity for the forming of that view; they just need to be satisfied—and, moreover, they just need to sort of decide that it might be appropriate to use the land for some undisclosed public purpose, then what do they do? They just go to the Gazette and they make a declaration.

There is no requirement that they take advice, no requirement that they achieve some sort of public urgency or exceptional circumstance or anything like that. It is all just here on the face of it. It might be that the minister or the council woke up that day and thought, 'Guess what? We're going to deprive another person of their private property.' Once they have done that, at new subsection (2)(c) there is not just sort of an open-ended arrangement about what compensation is going to be paid to the owner. No, it is all spelled out really clearly. It says that the lease that is to be entered into with this designated entity 'must not provide for the payment of rent by the designated entity under the lease'. They can sort of make good on things like rates and so on, but no rent, compulsory lease—it could be anything up to perpetuity—and off we go for the purpose that has been decided by either the minister or the council.

Why, in any set of circumstances, a responsible government in this state could have seen fit to go anywhere near this bill is bewildering. I think people are going to be having a very close look at what Malinauskas Labor really is all about, because we hear all sorts of things about the party times and the circuses and all this 'look over here', while the list of failures against every promise, from the biggest one on fixing ramping all the way through down the line, is adding up to the list of failures from this government. Now we see this abomination sent through the Legislative Council before the break and here now so that we can see private owners in this state deprived of land. It is an abomination and it should be voted down.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (10:59): I rise to speak strongly against this outrageous bill that we are being asked to debate, and I am amazed that it has got to this point of the debate. It is a bill that originated in the upper house and has passed one half of the parliamentary process with the support of the Labor Party, and now for it to get to our point of debating this bill I think is outrageous. If only people in the public knew that consideration was being given to a bill that gives the power to a designated entity—defined within this legislation as either the government or, in relation to land within the area of a council, that council—to temporarily control privately owned vacant and so-called underutilised land for public purposes, notably for emergency or portable housing.

This goes to a basic tenet of who we are as Australians: the rights of private landowners to have control of the land that they own without the need for the government to come in and take over. We see that within this bill landowners who are deemed unable or unwilling to develop their land can be subject to statutory leasing by the state or the relevant council, depending on where, without their consent, without any sort of discussion and without any sort of compensation.

Looking at the debate in the other place, which is the reason why it is here for us to debate in our house, I was flabbergasted. Indeed, I know my colleagues in the upper house were as well when the member who was speaking on behalf of the government indicated that they 'do not oppose this planning, development and infrastructure bill in principle'. This is why it is here in the lower house. I am not sure what has suddenly happened in the few weeks since it was debated in the upper house. To quote again from the other place:

The government supports the intent of the bill and is open to discussing sensible reforms that see vital land that is being banked made available for housing.

'The government supports the intent of the bill'—something has obviously changed, whatever it might be, and they are trying now to cover up that support that has meant it has gone through half of the parliamentary process that is necessary for legislation to get through and become enacted. When we see some of the quotes that have come out of the debate in the other place, it is amazing that the government can now be pretending that they have a completely different position. To quote again:

The government acknowledges the intent of the bill and is open to considering and progressing reforms in an alternative manner that would see vital land that is being land banked being made available for housing.

The Liberal Party, the opposition, want to speak very strongly against not just this bill as a whole but the intent of the bill—the intent that, in the other place, the government was saying they support—because this is something that should ring alarm bells for communities right around our state.

There is no structure around what would be considered an underutilised parcel of land. There are no guidelines. Indeed, during the committee stage in the other place, and I was interested to look at that, a question was asked of the mover to perhaps expand a little bit on an entity being satisfied—that is, 'satisfied that the owner of prescribed land is unwilling or unable to undertake development'. What sort of definition is there around 'satisfied'? The answer was that it 'has been deliberately not prescriptive in terms of what might inform some of those considerations'.

It has been deliberately open-ended so that the designated entity—whether that is a minister with these powers in the state government, or whether it is the council itself in relation to land within the area of a council—can decide on a whim. There are no structures. We do not know what the intent was when the discussion was being had in the other place. Some of the points that were being made really mean the capacity is there for a minister, council or a council officer, depending on how they are feeling on the day as to being satisfied, to say 'Yes, I am satisfied. We want to take control of this privately owned piece of land.'

This is an outrageous bill. It is outrageous that it has got to this point of the debate in our house when we are looking at some of these aspects, in particular, of what is a short but very dangerous bill. The first aspect where it says, 'If a designated entity is satisfied'—and we do not know what that satisfaction looks like—'that the owner of the prescribed land is unwilling or unable to undertake developments on, or make use of the land.'

This is getting worse and worse. It is becoming more and more of a parody. 'To the extent considered sufficient by the designated authority,' whatever extent that is that they are satisfied to the extent considered sufficient, so it is completely up to that designated authority, and 'within a period considered appropriate by that designated authority'.

If we were living in a jurisdiction that did not have the same democratic structures that we do, perhaps that might be something which is acceptable. For a democracy like Australia, for a democracy like South Australia, for a community like ours where the property rights of the individual should be central to our society, this is something which clearly and without any sort of doubt would undermine those property rights and give the power to a designated entity—a minister, a council—to say, 'You are not doing what we think you should, we are not satisfied. We do not think the extent to which you are going to undertake development on this land is sufficient, so we are going to take that control.'

As we were considering this bill, it never crossed our mind that it would go any further than an outrageous thought bubble from a lefty Greens' representative in the upper house. For it to be here now, the reason for our house to be discussing it is because it has been waved through by this Labor government and not just waved through—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TELFER: —thank you, sir, for your protection—not just waved through, but waved through with some definition. The lead speaker in the other place said, 'The government supports the intent of the bill.' It is not just that it has happened to have gone through. No, the government indicated, indeed, they support the intent of the bill.

I listened to the attempted interjections where they were talking about processes and the like. The government control the numbers. The government could have killed this off in the upper house. We could be in a situation where we are not debating this bill at all. But they acknowledged the intent. They are open to considering and progressing reforms. When the lead speaker rose on behalf of the government to indicate, 'We do not oppose this planning, development and infrastructure bill in principle'—the script changes depending on the whim of the politics and this Labor government have been found out for who they really are.

They are always making deals. They stand on no principle when they support in principle this bill and now, for us to be debating it in our house, I think it is an indictment of the foundations of this government, it is an indictment on the judgement of this government and it is an indictment on any sort of values base that this government professes to stand on when they are willing to indicate that they do not oppose a bill which takes away those important property rights that we all hold dear.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:09): I rise, too, to speak against the utterly ridiculous Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Use of Vacant Land) Amendment Bill. Who would have thought, as the member for Flinders has so well explained, that this legislation would even hit this house? It was debated in the upper house, in the other place. It was a dirty deal—lefty, green legislation—that the Labor Party agreed to. They support this legislation and all of a sudden they support it enthusiastically. All of a sudden, they have had a brain fade, something has changed. What has happened in the Labor Party party room? They champion themselves: we speak as one. There might have even been a debate about this at some stage.

They have completely flipped 180° on something so vital for not just South Australians but Australians, and on the ownership of land, housing and property. It is completely outrageous legislation—it should never have entered this house. Yet, here we see the good whip—I am a former whip—the member for Elizabeth, the fall guy, having to introduce this legislation while the super minister, the Minister for Urban Development, is here in the house. What the heck! What is going on? The whip had to take the fall—it is just outrageous. He had to sacrifice himself because he is doing his job as the whip, and I find that outrageous as well.

Mr Odenwalder: Doing my job.

Mr PEDERICK: I just admitted that, and shielding the super minister. I have seen echoes of this in China directly, because this—

The Hon. N.D. Champion: Come on!

Mr PEDERICK: I have. No, you could have spoken earlier, super, you could have spoken earlier. You could have introduced it. I have seen this. I was briefed on this.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond will come to order and he will not accuse people in here of behaving like people in China, and everyone needs to just calm down and stop yelling at each other.

Mr PEDERICK: People on the other side saying that they do not support this legislation: yes, you did, because you approved it in the upper house, in the other place. I have been in here for nearly 20 years and the Labor Party speaks as one, because if you do not you will end up in Outer Mongolia—that is where you end up. I have seen people run out of this place. I have seen people run out of the other place—that is exactly what happens. You speak as one, and all of sudden we have had a mental mind block and something has changed. And, yes, I have seen this in China. I was over there about 10 years ago and I had a briefing, and it was quite interesting, with a group—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, very short on private land in China. But there were farmers who were allegedly farming their own land. The briefing we had was, 'Well, we moved the farmers off their land and we moved them into these 20 to 30-storey apartment blocks and they're very happy with that'. I thought, of course they are—like hell! That is what this is, that is exactly what this is. This is exactly what this legislation is—it is communist legislation. To think that this legislation could even make it into this house is completely outrageous. We are not in China, we are not in Russia, we are not in North Korea.

My family has been approached by governments over many decades. I have spoken many times about compulsory acquisition: 1939 at Angle Vale, again at Angle Vale in 1950, weapons dumps in 1939, Edinburgh air base in 1950, and the early 1970s at Coomandook, when they wanted to move the Dukes Highway. What would have happened under this legislation then, if it was similar legislation? 'We will just take your 7½ acres. We will not worry about re-fencing that three kilometres, we will just take it. We will just take it and you just have to live with it.'

What an outrageous load of rot, just completely outrageous. It is completely outrageous that the Malinauskas Labor government are so arrogant that they think, 'We will suck up to the Greens in the other place,' because they think they need the votes and the preferences, and then all of a sudden, 'We will just run down here and change our mind.' My God, you have all supported it—you on the other side. The Labor Party has supported this legislation. It is completely outrageous.

I wonder if they would like someone knocking on their door and saying, 'We're just going to take your land. We'll take the lot.' We have seen this before with the Greens bill on capping rents. I had small investors in Murray Bridge and surrounding areas coming into my office and saying, 'Adrian, I have been to the accountant and we are just getting out. I have six but, no, I'm selling them. On the accountant's advice, I'm just getting out with this sort of debate going on in the parliament of this state.'

That is what this legislation does. Why would you own a block of land or own anything, for example, if you have the government of the state, the Malinauskas Labor government, agreeing that it is okay to take over vacant land without compensation? It is completely outrageous. What is the point when you are up against the council approval process? 'Alright, we will take the vacant land. What happens next? Do we wait 18 months, do we wait two years, do we wait three years for that land to go through an approval process to build a dwelling on it?' That is what happens in the real world, sadly.

I am still not sure to this day, but I have gone to councils like the Rural City of Murray Bridge and said, 'Just get rid of your planners and just have private certifiers.' That is where the hold-up is. The hold-up is at development approval level. We have seen in my area, on the current boundaries of Murray Bridge without Gifford Hill, around 5,000 allotments that could be developed. What we need are fast-tracked approvals and that land will be developed over time.

Then we go over the road to Gifford Hill near the Murray Bridge Racing Club where the Costa Group from Melbourne and Geelong are going to develop that. They have to go through that extensive approval process. There will be, over time, over three to four decades, 17,000 homes built there. Over time and into the future, there will be more homes built as Murray Bridge and surrounding areas become part of the Greater Adelaide Regional Plan.

It is a great idea, but this legislation is not the way to do it. It just beggars belief that in this liberal democracy this legislation has actually hit the floor of this house. The Labor Party has the numbers in the other place but, 'Oh, well, we'll just do a dirty deal and we'll just come downstairs and no-one will notice the difference.' Surprise, surprise—when you look at the flagrant abuse of liberal democracy and the thought that anyone can just turn up and take your property with no compensation, no rights and just bulldoze through.

I will relate to the environment and food production area legislation where there are farmers in my area and other electorates between Kapunda and the south coast—in the member for Finniss's electorate—and because there have been lines drawn on a map you cannot have another dwelling. A lot of farmers might have a 2,000 hectare property and they would love to perhaps put a house on the corner of the property for a son or a daughter, but they are simply banned from having it. They are not trying to build the place out, they just want to have another house. This legislation had to be amended for horticultural people in the Adelaide Plains area so that they had the opportunity for people to effectively farm their properties.

There are other ways to increase housing and availability in this state. We do not need this radical left-wing stuff that has come straight out of Beijing. It is just crazy stuff. I do not know what goes on in the party room of the Labor Party. I do not know whether the Premier walks in and says, 'Today this is what we're doing,' and everyone just nods their heads like sheep and says, 'Yes, we speak as one. We speak as one and we will do it.' Then, all of a sudden, we will have a brain burst and it is, 'Oh no, we have changed our mind all of a sudden; we will do something else.'

It is fascinating that we have the super minister here today, the minister responsible for this legislation, and that he was not game enough to introduce it into this house of parliament. It is completely outrageous, and this legislation needs to be put in the bin, where it should have been in the other place.