Question Time

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question regarding land release for residential development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I was concerned to note Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on 25 August this year showing that, whilst South Australia's population continues to increase, the number of residential dwellings approved for construction fell by some 10.2 per cent. The ABS report entitled 'SA stats of August 2009' shows that the state's population is steadily increasing and noted an increase of some 18,500 people, or 1.2 per cent last year, to just over 1.6 million people. However, approvals for new residential dwellings actually fell by 10.2 per cent, to 12,013 in the 12 months to 31 June this year.

What is now the Land Management Corporation was first formed in 1973 and was originally called the South Australian Land Commission. Its primary aim, according to the Land Commission Act 1973, was the provision of land to those members of the community who do not have large financial resources. The Land Commission Act further made it clear that the commission 'shall not conduct its business with a view to making a profit'.

In 1981 those motives were deleted from the legislation as the Land Commission was reconstituted with a new directive to be more focused on profit rather than supplying needed land to South Australian families. As a result, land supply is now reduced and prices are substantially higher. My questions to the minister are:

1. Is he satisfied that sufficient land is being released so that South Australian families can enjoy affordable housing?

2. Will the minister consider changing the Land Management Corporation charter so that the requirement on it to make a profit is removed, thus lowering the cost of land released and therefore the cost of housing?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:10): The latter matter, the Land Management Corporation charter, is really one for my colleague the Minister for Infrastructure, because that body reports to him. However, as I have pointed out in this place on a number of occasions, the LMC is only one source of land supply.

When I first became Minister for Urban Development and Planning 4½ years ago, the figures were, I think, something like 70 per cent of land within the urban growth boundaries, and large parcels of land were in the hands of the LMC. Now, because the LMC has been releasing land, the proportion of land it owns within the urban growth boundary—before the 30-year plan—is significantly less. Clearly, the LMC has been releasing land onto the market at a faster rate than private holdings.

I have indicated in this chamber on a number of occasions that one of the problems we face with an urban growth boundary is that not everyone who owns land within that boundary is concerned with putting it onto the market. Where that land is privately held (and a large proportion of it is) the owners may wish to hang onto it. The very fact that it is within an urban growth boundary, of course, creates value for that land relative to land outside the boundary. So, there is a reverse incentive for people to sit on it and let the land value appreciate. That is one of the dilemmas that we face in relation to land supply, and it is one of the reasons why the Planning and Development Review recommended that we increase the amount of land within the urban growth boundary to 25 years, of which 15 years should be zoned ready.

The dilemma at the moment is that with a lot of the land, even some of the land that has been within the urban growth boundaries now for a decade or more—or has been earmarked for future development for some time (because the urban growth boundary itself was established, I think, in 2001)—there is a reluctance on the part of some local governments to rezone it. One of the issues this government faces at the moment is ensuring that there is sufficient land supply.

We have discussed the 30-year plan targets at length in this parliament, and I am sure that on a number of occasions members have heard me say that at the end of that 30-year period we would like to see at least 70 per cent or more of the growth as infill or brownfield development, rather than new greenfield development. Achieving that objective will be a very difficult task, and it is the main challenge facing the government.

However, that will come about through projects such as the former Clipsal site at Bowden, which demonstrates (as has happened in other parts of Australia and overseas) the sort of high quality developments that could achieve a much greater density but also be very attractive for people to live in. People enjoy living in a community that is walkable, where they can have close access to everything, and clearly we have to turn around attitudes towards that.

In the meantime, we have to deal with the land release problem, even if we achieve that very ambitious goal. The only other city achieving those sorts of figures would be Sydney, which has, I think, 80 per cent of its development within its current boundary. There is obviously a much lower proportion of greenfield in Sydney, because of the particular issues in that city; after all, it has spread out so far that there is much more incentive to go up. However, in other parts of Australia our 70 per cent target would be regarded as extremely ambitious. We will do everything we can to achieve that goal, but in the meantime we have to do everything we can to make land available.

The honourable member is correct in pointing out the difficulties in getting more zoned land available within the community. The supply is tighter than I would like. The solution is not so much just with the Land Management Corporation. My colleague, Carmel Zollo, has informed me that the charter has been changed in relation to profit, but the LMC is only one part of that. One of the problems we face is that a number of councils are reluctant to rezone land for all sorts of reasons, including shortage of planning staff, fees, infrastructure costs, and so on. So, there are a whole lot of reasons, legitimate and otherwise, why they may resist the rezoning of land, but from where I sit as Minister for Urban Development and Planning that is as big an issue as LMC releases.

Over the years that I have been minister, the LMC has released significant amounts of land on to the market. The problem in some cases is getting councils to rezone them. If necessary the government has the option of doing this by ministerial zoning. One only has to look at the dilemmas one faces presently in relation to Gawler East. In situations like that we would rather negotiate outcomes with councils and try to deal with their issues and assist them in negotiating solutions to the infrastructure issues they face.

Mount Barker is another example of an area that has grown fairly rapidly in recent years where these issues need to be resolved. We are trying to work with the council to ensure we get the land supply to increase but, given the population growth referred to by the honourable member, the 18,600 or 1.2 per cent last year, which puts us exactly on track to achieve the 30-year objective, clearly we have to ensure a viable supply of land to accommodate that growth. However, we also need to ensure that the redevelopment of our inner city areas works, particularly along transport corridors, and achieves the density necessary to achieve that future growth.