Vacant Land Legislation

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:35): I rise to speak on the vacant land bill which passed the upper house (this chamber) just before the winter break. They say never let the truth get in the way of a good story. That is certainly the case for the SA Liberal Party, who have been running a misinformation campaign against this bill during the winter break. I note the Hon. David Pisoni has written to electors in his seat of Unley:

…warning of a radical Greens proposal that would allow the seizure of privately owned land without compensation or consent.

In his letter, the honourable member warns that:

…underutilised land could be taken over by the state for an undefined public purpose without any right to appeal or compensation.

The member also warns that 'the bill includes no certainty or protection for landowners'. These claims are incorrect. The bill makes clear that a council or the minister will only acquire a compulsory lease if the designated entity has taken reasonable steps to negotiate the acquisition of an interest in the prescribed land on reasonable terms so that they may be used for a public purpose. In other words, the minister or the local council needs to have tried to acquire an interest in the land and the owner has not been amenable.

The bill also makes clear that a compulsory lease will only be applied when it is appropriate for the land to be used for a public purpose, and the bill provides some guidance around this—i.e. to be used for a public park or temporary housing. As is the case with other administrative decisions, the landowner can appeal against a determination made under section 243A of the act to the Supreme Court. Section 243 makes clear that nothing in the act prevents the owner from being reimbursed for rates, taxes or levies.

When I introduced this bill back in 2022, I made it clear that the purpose of the legislation would be to focus on long-term vacant land. I noted that sometimes lands sits vacant because financing has fallen through and a developer has to abandon a project, but sometimes it is because a landowner is land banking, which is the practice of using unused land to gain a return on investment with very few overheads or outlays. There is also, of course, the example of the old Le Cornu site I noted, which sat vacant for nearly 30 years. It is of concern when you see prime land like this remaining vacant and government not taking any action.

It is a complete nonsense to suggest that the Greens are coming after your backyard. Does anyone in their wildest dreams think that a local council or a minister would go after some small vacant pocket of residential land? How exactly would they be able to demonstrate such land would be used for a public purpose?

I was profoundly disappointed to hear the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Josh Teague, has been doing the rounds of aged-care homes in his area, whipping up fear and anxiety about this. How shameful. Might I say, I saw the absurd video that he posted on his social media, which was also misleading. Indeed, I intend to refer this and other material from the Hon. David Pisoni to the Electoral Commission for their consideration.

I recognise in response to this misinformation campaign that the government has now voted against the bill and it is no longer on the legislative agenda. Indeed, the government have been consistent that they did not support the bill in its current form, but were happy to not oppose the bill in this chamber. It passed the upper house without division. If the Liberal Party felt so strongly about the issue, why did they not call a division?

It is regrettable that this has become the focus of a fear campaign. I indicate now that I will not be pursuing this bill in the next term of parliament and it will not be part of the Greens' platform for the state election. I will, however, continue to advocate for the activation of vacant land. We are in a housing crisis; we need to consider all available levers. It is not right that people sleep on the street while some developers land bank.

What is telling about this whole episode is that we have a planning minister who is open to having an intelligent discussion about all of the options that we have for dealing with the housing crisis. This sits in stark contrast to the Liberals, who have once again demonstrated themselves to be visionless naysayers—no agenda, no plan for dealing with the housing crisis.

Might I say, I had the opportunity to listen to the debate in the other place earlier this morning and it was utterly ridiculous. I was mightily offended to hear myself being likened to someone coming from communist China. I have heard myself referred to as 'Red Rob' in the past, but I encourage members who have an interest to listen to the ridiculous, hysterical claims made by the opposition in the other place. This takes clutching at straws to a whole new level—desperation writ large from the opposition, who have no ideas, no housing policy and no plan to get the housing crisis back on track.

I am happy to indicate that I will not be pursuing this bill because I am concerned it will become a distraction from the broader issues facing the housing crisis. But shame on the Liberal opposition for whipping up a smoke and mirrors campaign and using this bill as a fig leaf to disguise their own lack of vision for this state and plan to deal with the housing crisis.