Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Land for Food and Grocery Stores) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:57): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to address one of the issues that emerged as part of the Select Committee on Grocery Prices that I chaired last year. Members may recall that that inquiry handed down its report in the latter months of last year. One of the key elements that was examined by our inquiry, and indeed has been the focus of a federal parliamentary inquiry as well, was the issue of supermarket chains buying up land in greenfield developments so that they can effectively land bank and ensure that they maintain a competitive advantage over smaller chains and retailers.

The select committee heard evidence that for many years Coles, Woolworths and Aldi have lobbied governments to rezone land in regional and some metropolitan communities outside of the established town centre and retail precincts. We heard evidence that these sites offer cheap land not zoned for retail when acquired, and that allows the big food retailers like your Coles, Woolworths and Aldi to avoid more expensive sites already zoned and, again, to increase their market share. Foodland, one of the smaller food retailers in our state, therefore gave evidence to the committee that it considered it appropriate for the state government to prevent rezoning of these greenfield sites, except in exceptional circumstances.

The rezoning, it was suggested, draws customers away from established town centres and retail precincts, creating dislocation in the local community and hollowing out the town centre, with main streets being reduced to empty shopfronts. I believe we had some evidence as well from advocates in the farming and growing community, who also talked about their concerns and their experiences in regional centres where you had a Coles or a Woolies popping up and basically driving the small food retailers, like your local greengrocer, out of business.

Foodland further advised the Select Committee on Grocery Pricing that, through their parent companies or third parties, Coles and Woolies engage in land banking. They acquire or secure control of land in strategic growth corridors, some tenanted by local independent grocers, who then become one of the duopoly's tenants. When the lease expires, the independent store owner can be ousted from the site, with Coles or Woolies then able to establish a larger supermarket over the top.

Moreover, Foodland has no presence in South Australia's large shopping centres, and this stems from Coles, Woolworths and Aldi offering to pay higher rent per square metre, which independent Foodland owners are not able to do if they are to remain profitable. I understand that was some of the evidence provided to the inquiry.

It is worth noting that, in its findings, the committee refuted the evidence from Woolworths that smaller food retailers are contributing to higher prices in South Australia. I thought it was a rather curious claim, that more competition is somehow bad for pricing, but that was the view that Coles and Woolworths put to our inquiry. People criticise green economics, but I am not sure that really follows. It sort of confounds most people's understanding of how a free market works. But it was the view of Coles and Woolies that the smaller retailers were driving up prices for others.

What we did find at the committee, however, was that lack of competition is in fact a factor that is contributing to higher prices, particularly in regional areas, and there is a need to promote further competition to potentially reduce the cost for consumers. In particular, the committee recommended that the Minister for Planning investigate potential amendments to state planning laws to prevent the rezoning of greenfield sites to retail in instances where this would have had a negative impact on existing businesses. It was also proposed that the state government consider options to discourage the practice of land banking by the major food retailers.

That is where this bill comes in. The bill amends the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act in an effort to try to crack down on the practice of land banking. In particular, the bill would require any change to rezoning or any change to the use for the development of a supermarket to consider some of the following criteria:

the distance of this food premises from other food retailers in the relevant area;

the impact on existing businesses involved in the sale of food and groceries in the relevant area;

the extent and nature of the growth of the population in the relevant area;

the availability and appropriateness of alternative sites for such premises in the relevant area;

whether detailed plans have been prepared relating to the development and operation of a business involving the sale of food and groceries on the land;

whether there are reasons why the amendment should be proceeding at a later time; and

whether the amendment in terms of the use of land is in the public interest.

My bill would also require these developments to be subject to public consultation. This is not a radical proposition, it is seeking to introduce a public interest test into these zoning decisions, which I think any planning minister would welcome. It strengthens the hand of the government of the day to ensure that any of these approvals are really in the interests of the public, rather than the interests of these large corporations.

I had hoped, when we handed down the report some 12 months ago, that the government would come to this place with their own bill in an effort to address some of the issues that have been raised at the parliamentary inquiry. Unfortunately, which has often been the pattern of the Malinauskas government when it comes to select committees, the report was handed down, it was put in a top drawer somewhere, and it has been gathering dust ever since.

That is disappointing, but at least this private members' bill provides an opportunity for the government to address one of the key recommendations that came out of the report. I see the Hon. Reggie Martin nodding enthusiastically. He was involved with the committee and I hope that he will impress upon his colleagues the importance of action in this regard. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.