HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2015.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (10:17): Obviously, members will be well aware that I am rising to speak to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill currently before our chamber. I indicate for members' planning purposes (pardon the pun) that I will be talking for in the order of 45 minutes or thereabouts.

Family First welcomes a simplification of the planning system and any reduction in red tape if the result is to stimulate the economy and ensure that the average South Australian can afford to purchase a home as well as improve our already very high-quality lifestyle in this state. Equally, any measure that impinges on the ability of a family or an individual to secure a home is a measure that Family First always has and always will strongly oppose.

For the benefit of the chamber, I indicate that Family First opposes or has concerns and will ultimately oppose (unless there is substantial change to these areas) two specific areas of the bill, and they are the urban growth boundary and we have very substantial concerns about the infrastructure levies or the proposal as it currently stands. My contribution today will canvass the benefits of the bill as we see it, our concerns with the urban growth boundary and the infrastructure levy reform areas, and briefly touch on a number of other what you might call lesser although also still important issues.

That being said, we may well speak to further matters as the debate continues. This is obviously a complex bill with more than 200 clauses and it will result in very substantial change to the way the planning system works in our state for literally decades to come. It will be no surprise to any member of this place that the planning system has been criticised for being overly complex and allowing great variance between different locations. Decisions are often seen to be somewhat arbitrary and subjective rather than objective.

We know that the planning system has produced numerous absurd results in some cases as it currently stands in both residential and commercial settings, which is why a reframing of this system is most welcome. I take this opportunity to congratulate the government, the Attorney-General in particular—and I have said it to him personally—for attempting substantial reform. This is, in our view, well overdue. It is easy to let these things continue without touching them because it is a hotbed or a beehive, if you like. Whatever it is, it is obviously a complex area that would be easy to leave alone, and I give credit to the Attorney-General for taking it on. That said, as I have indicated, we do not agree with all of it, but we do with agree with a lot of it.

On the domestic front, and looking at residential housing rather than commercial properties at this stage, I recently became aware of a situation whereby a new homeowner fell foul of local council regulation when it came to works in their own front and backyard. This couple opted to landscape their front yard and promptly notified the council as such; they did the right thing. Unfortunately, they did not realise that they were required to get permission for each individual item they were changing in the yard, rather than simply getting permission to landscape the front yard as their time and finances permitted.

This meant that their initial permission covered the path they built between their driveway and their front door but did not extend to the landscaping that they erected two weeks later. I find that pretty incredible. One really wonders why you need to get council approval, or anybody's approval, to put a path in your own front yard; secondly, why would you need approval for individual aspects of what is a very minor project in the scheme of things? Even more absurd is that the same couple fell foul of their council or got in trouble (whichever way you want to put it) for building a small rabbit hutch—and I mean small—in their backyard because they did not have council approval to do so. Again, that is absurd.

When building a structure such as a gazebo, verandah, garage or something large I can see some merit in having general approval from a regulatory body, but I cannot understand why a council would be so technical about a small, movable rabbit hutch that it required council approval. I think this bill before us will go some way to addressing these absurdities. This is a perfect example of the planning and development bureaucracy that has triggered this reform. Reform is, in fact, long overdue and again I give the Attorney-General in particular credit for attempting to do so.

A more notable but equally silly case recently was that of a Burnside councillor which received widespread media attention, and I am sure that members would be well aware of it. This man was actually taken to court by his own council (he is a councillor on this council) for erecting an umbrella outside his house to provide shade for his car. The Burnside council ordered the umbrella to be pulled down because the councillor did not have appropriate planning approval nor did the umbrella fit within the so-called historic character of the suburb in which he lived, which I understand is Toorak Gardens.

At great expense to himself, the individual councillor decided not to accept the decision and went through the court process. I do not know how many tens of thousands of dollars that cost him, but no doubt it was several. Subsequently, after a long drawn-out process and great angst (over an umbrella remember) a judge determined that the umbrella did not require planning approval and that the councillor was free to erect his umbrella once more. Again, what is so offensive about an umbrella? Common sense surely dictates that this was not a structure worthy of council approval, and the cost involved to establish that was nothing short of ridiculous.

This system has to change. We cannot have a system in place where councils run around telling people they cannot have an umbrella in their front yards to shade their cars. It is ridiculous—not to mention the money the Burnside council would have spent on pursuing that case, which was all ratepayers' money which should be used for legitimate purposes.

Of course, there are many other examples. One of the largest and most commonly known in relation to planning in this city is what has happened to the so-called old Le Cornu site in North Adelaide, the large site on O'Connell Street, which is absolutely prime land in the City of Adelaide. It has a long and unpleasant history, and I understand that the Hon. Mark Parnell made some comments about it yesterday that I do not take any issue with because I think what he said was largely correct. The problem is that if developers cannot make a return, at least even a fair return, on a certain patch of dirt, they simply will not proceed with the project. When you are talking about prime pieces of real estate like that, it is not unreasonable for a developer to expect to make at least a reasonable, fair market return.

There have been several instances where the state government has been forced to intervene on that particular site and, of course, most recently essentially breaking the stalemate between the local council and the developers. I can speak as a resident of North Adelaide. I know the area well, obviously, I live there, and I place on the record that I am very strongly in support of the so-called Le Cornu site development, the Makris development. I think it would be a terrific boon not only for the area but for South Australia. I understand that the Sheraton Hotel has been attracted to lodge its operations there, which I would strongly support.

What we had in that situation was a few of the councillors saying that it was too high. It is North Adelaide, it is not a suburban area: it is North Adelaide. It is where people expect to see substantial development; it is that sort of area. I accept that they may not want that in a more residential area such as Burnside, Prospect, or some of those other more residential suburbs, but in an area like North Adelaide I think people are not offended to see building development that is higher than they might see elsewhere.

It is this sort of regulatory impediment to development that is not what South Australia needs. We certainly welcome changes that will ensure accurate and expedient planning approvals which will stimulate and benefit our economy and most importantly our lifestyle in South Australia. As a final comment on that development, I think it needs to go ahead, and it looks like it will go ahead. It will create employment, it will improve property values and it will create rates revenue for the council and taxation for the state and federal governments. It is a must, as far as I am concerned, and I fully support it.

There are many more examples of ridiculous planning bureaucracy that have occurred over the years. That is why Family First welcomes some of the intelligent changes that have been proposed under this bill. Logic dictates that a clear set of planning and design rules applicable statewide would be beneficial as a general set of guidelines, as it would clearly identify applicable rules for engaging with planning and development without the potential for confusion and inconsistency between different areas and sometimes literally between one side of the road and the other.

Simplifying the assessment process for small-scale development in particular certainly has the potential to increase development, and making design a consideration of the reassessment can certainly aid in the provision of a vibrant and regenerated South Australia. We see this as a most beneficial change to our system as long as, again, it is not overregulated and over bureaucratised.

One of the most frequent complaints that is made about the current planning and development process is that communities feel they have not been adequately consulted on proposed changes. Under this bill, community engagement strategies guided by the engagement charter certainly lend themselves to better stakeholder consultation and involvement, especially in determining planning policies. Joint planning arrangements which allow for cooperation between councils, state government and also, obviously, the community are also a welcome condition under this bill and go some way to fostering a beneficial relationship between the three often competing groups.

Finally, we support better access to planning and development information. Documents and approvals via an online portal will make access and engagement with the community easier, more efficient and, I think, take a lot of the angst out of some of the decision-making. One can see how these improvements would address complaints of complex and confusing planning rules and lengthy approval times. Family First certainly welcomes any restructuring of the process which reduces red tape and fosters investment in South Australia and, I repeat, improves our already high-quality lifestyle, which ultimately of course is what planning is all about.

Given the significance of what we are trying to achieve here as a parliament, as well as the potential impact this bill will have, Family First is inclined to take the requisite time to consider this bill thoroughly to ensure that the best outcome occurs. With the right reforms, we can achieve the economic gains South Australia so desperately needs as well as the flow on benefits, such as improved employment and affordable housing for the people of South Australia, and even improved lifestyle benefits.

We know from a submission received from the Property Council that the property sector provides employment for about 170,000 South Australians; in other words, $4.4 billion in wages is derived from the property industry in this state. The property industry alone accounts for 10.8 per cent—let's call that 11 per cent, near enough—of South Australia's economic activity, bringing a total of $10½ billion in gross state product. It is therefore imperative that any changes we make are demonstrably for the better.

I have received significant industry submissions, as no doubt other members have, opposing the implementation of the urban growth boundary and the infrastructure levy reforms, and I remain unconvinced that what the government is proposing is actually beneficial to South Australia. It is very difficult to argue against the industry in this matter, as they are the ones best positioned to advise us. Frankly, it is their livelihood that is at stake, so you would expect them to be well informed on the issue. I have heard it put along these lines by some: they are the ones with the skin in the game and therefore they are the ones focused on the game.

Family First has a longstanding established policy in the area of affordable housing. Our concerns about the introduction of an urban growth boundary and the proposed infrastructure levies pertain to the potential they create in driving higher prices to a place where it will be impossible for the average family or first home owner to enter the market. We do not believe that either of these initiatives will improve the lives of South Australians, and they are simply not acceptable to us in the current form.

Currently, the median housing price has inflated to more than nine times the median income. Housing prices have come a long way from the previous 100 years, when the median house price was consistently averaging about three times the median income. Urban growth boundaries notoriously increase housing prices due to a contrived lack of available land. Couple that with the additional payments due to unforeseen infrastructure levies and our already inflated utility prices, and it is not difficult to see the median house price rising beyond the current trend of a very high nine times median income, indeed a historically high nine times median income level. How tragic that would be.

This horrendous increase in the cost of housing means that in most cases the average family needs two incomes to support the purchase of a house and a greater proportion of the family income is being funnelled into mortgage repayments, assuming, of course, that people are able to purchase a house to begin with. It is not hard to see why the dream of home ownership has been pushed beyond many of those who are on a low to medium income. As a slight aside, that is why at a federal level we advocate income splitting, which would at least go some way to addressing this issue.

The recent federal inquiry into housing affordability has noted that we need to move away from thinking of rental properties as short-term accommodation and recognise that many people simply will not ever be able to afford to purchase a home in their lifetime. This is indeed a social tragedy. It is a concerning admission, as we know that most retirees, even with substantial superannuation, will not have enough money to live comfortably post retirement. In fact, many people will be living below the poverty line. It is essential that we create a system whereby people can own their homes entirely by the time they retire, so that those who have limited superannuation—which will be many, unfortunately—can afford to live and enjoy their retirement rather than use most of their money to simply accommodate themselves.

Research into the benefits of home ownership suggests that, on average, home owners have better health, self-confidence, involvement in community, employment opportunities, physical and mental health and greater wealth, and that their children are even more successful at school, on average, than those who are forced into rental accommodation.

The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) made a further submission to the recent federal inquiry:

Housing, affordability and location are integral to enabling population growth, and labour mobility, supporting improvements in participation rates and improving productivity. The housing and construction industries are also key drivers of economic activity, and associated jobs growth. Adequate housing is also a basic necessity and human right which impacts on education, health and employment outcomes, as well as the overall wellbeing of the population. Having a private place to be which is decent and over which we have some real control is fundamental to the wellbeing of every one of us as individuals and communities. In this sense, affordable housing is both vital economic and social infrastructure.

Home ownership is fast becoming the privilege of a few in this country rather than the expectation of many. The benefits to creating an environment where affordable housing is a reality are greater and much wider reaching than the initial benefit from profiting from land sales alone. It is essential that our system returns a realistic goal of home ownership for the average South Australian once more. As I said, it used to cost approximately three times the average income to buy a median house in South Australia; it is now between seven and nine.

The major factor affecting housing affordability, of course, is the cost of land. Some land developers, state governments and land management corporations have made exorbitant amounts of money at the cost of the average South Australian, who is no longer able to afford the cost of new home ownership. The deliberate policy of limiting urban growth will only further contribute to this economic situation, and a very difficult situation it is. The sentiment I have just outlined appears to be shared by the HIA which has pointed out:

Urban Growth Boundaries present substantial problems for the efficient management of land. UGBs can also pose significant challenges for housing affordability if there is a sustained increase in the demand for housing. As the supply of land diminishes, the typical result is higher prices and the appearance of smaller allotments as developers try and stretch the land they have available to meet housing demand and maintain an affordable product in a supply-constrained environment.

UGBs also reduce or eliminate the potential for market competition between owners of land inside the UGB and those with property outside the UGB, thereby artificially limiting the pool of land available for conversion to higher use.

Of course, the obvious implication from that is that that results in further increasing prices. Going back to a point I made just a moment ago that some developers, the state government and others have profited very much out of this, the fact is that in the case of developers most of them are merely covering the cost foisted upon them, and whilst there have been one or two examples of some of them making very substantial amounts of money, the reality is that for most of them it is in their interests to present an affordable product to the market or otherwise it simply will not sell. They sell their product at a cost which includes the very substantial costs foisted upon them by regulation and other requirements.

The HIA further notes that limiting the release of land on the urban fringe is generally not accompanied by an increase in available land, and that there is no certainty that existing residents will make their sites available for redevelopment. This could lead to a situation whereby the government compulsorily acquires infill sites. Although this would not be common, of course, it may be, and I do not believe this is something South Australians want to see occur.

There is no compulsion on anyone to make their land available inside the urban growth boundary. They may decide that they simply are happy to sit on that land for a long time. They may have other plans for it within their own families or businesses or whatever it may be. There is an assumption in the whole method of introducing an urban growth boundary that all of a sudden people within that boundary will make their land available, but there is no certainty of that.

When you couple the cost of an urban growth boundary with the infrastructure levies the government is proposing, one cannot help but become increasingly concerned with the burgeoning cost to the ultimate customer—the homeowner. As I have already said, the major factor of housing affordability is, indeed, the cost of land.

By way of an example, if members open their Sunday Mail, as I am sure they do from time to time, and go to the housing section, which maybe some do and some do not—I certainly do—they will notice that you can have built a brand-new three-bedroom, two-bathroom, single-garage house for around $100,000 to $110,000 or something in that order. If somebody wants a four or five-bedroom home with a large family area, a couple of bathrooms and a double garage—quite a nice home—then that can be built for about $200,000. Given that the actual house component of a dwelling, if you like, in a house and land package is in the order of $100,000 to $200,000 for most of the houses being built today, it is bewildering that the median house price in Adelaide, as I have just discovered in recent days, is something like $410,000. Obviously, the land component makes up the rest of that.

Of course, not that long ago, the land component was a very low cost. The government has a large part to play in the cost of land. When the South Australian Land Commission was established in 1973, the primary aim was to ensure the provision of land to those members of the community who did not have substantial financial resources. The commission was required by the act to ensure that they did not conduct their business with a view to making a profit.

Fast forward to the mid-90s and the instruction was changed to maximise the return to government. This is quite a significant change from the noble intention of the 70s where the primary purpose was the provision of land at affordable prices. Now, of course, it is to maximise the return to government. Another word for that is an increased level of taxation.

It is therefore Family First's belief that, to restore housing affordability, the government wants, to whatever extent possible, to pull back and step aside from the land management role and allow the natural forces of supply and demand to return to the market. It is only as adequate supply returns to the market that land prices will moderate, which is exactly the economic and social stimulus we need here in South Australia.

Actually limiting supply will only force up prices, of course. We need strategies that create long-term certainty of supply, appropriate allotments and good locations at an affordable cost, whilst ensuring that those people who bought further from the CBD can still receive a fair and adequate market rate for their property when they do choose to sell.

Urban growth boundaries do not achieve this, rather they force the price of land up and reduce the quality of living for many who do not want to live in close proximity to others, because what happens is blocks get smaller and smaller, and that is what we are seeing. The Adelaide metropolitan area has the smallest average size of land being released of any capital city in Australia. I find that quite interesting, given that we have the lowest population of any of the five major capital cities. Why would we have the lowest average square metre size of land being released to the market? Something is not right. Not everyone wants to live on 300 square metres. Plenty of people, particularly those with children, would appreciate the opportunity for more land.

We have often heard Mount Barker given as an example of terrible development. I do not think Mount Barker is terrible at all. I think Mount Barker is a lovely spot. I do not live there, I do not go there that often but, when I do, I am impressed with what a nice place it is, frankly. They tend to be larger blocks. There are many new homes and good facilities. It is a nice sort of semi-rural, if you like, setting in which to live. I make no criticism of Mount Barker; in fact, I have praise for it.

I think we can sometimes create all these arguments about the necessity for infrastructure and all these wonderful facilities, but all that does is add cost and price people out of the market. One of the things that I always reflect on and has shaped my views on this issue and this particular way of thinking very strongly is my own story.

Back in 1977, I was just a young lad, seven years old, and my mum and dad had been living in public housing for quite some time but always had the dream of buying their own home. They saved and saved, and saved up the princely sum of $500, which was the required deposit to buy a house and land package in Salisbury, which is where I grew up. In fact, my dad ended up borrowing a fair portion of that $500 from my grandfather, as I understand it. That $500 was used as the deposit, and it bought a house and land package which was $33,500 in total for house and land that was over 1,000 square metres. Because of the relative affordability of that home, my parents were able to get a foot on the property ladder which they would not have otherwise been able to afford.

When we moved there, there was no infrastructure whatsoever. There were no buses, there were certainly no shops, there was nothing, really. In fact, across the road, there were almond orchards. There was literally nothing, and yet they did not care because they had the opportunity to buy their own home and create their own journey, their own story, and that is what they did.

Since that time, they have moved on and they are about to move again. In fact, they just sold their home in the last few weeks. So, that very modest three-bedroom, one-bathroom, brick veneer house out at Salisbury gave them a foot on the property ladder which has really set them up for life financially. What we do not want to do is pile all these costs onto properties that people cannot afford and stop them getting on the property ladder at all, and that is what we have been doing for too long. It is a real problem and it is not beneficial.

I am not sympathetic to all these arguments that go, 'This area has not got that infrastructure, and this area has not got that infrastructure.' People are not stupid. If somebody wants a bus service and they need to get that to work or wherever they might want to go, then they are not going to move to an area that does not offer a bus service. They are not stupid. They will only move there if they have got a car, which was exactly the case with my parents way back in 1977. They did not need a bus service because they drove. I just think we do not give people enough credit sometimes to make decisions that best suit them. That experience, if you like, although I was obviously only very young at the time, has embedded a very firm conviction in me on that issue.

I turn from those issues to link to another issue I mentioned in my opening, that is, infrastructure levies, which is a very significant issue within this bill. Another contributing factor, of course, to burgeoning land prices can be the way infrastructure is funded. In August 2006, the then governor of the Reserve Bank (Ian MacFarlane) offered the following evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration about the increase in prices in entry-level housing, and he said:

I think it is pretty apparent now that reluctance to release new land plus the new approach whereby the purchaser has to pay for all the services up front—the sewerage, the roads, the footpaths and all that sort of stuff, has enormously increased the price of the new, entry-level home.

That is exactly the point I just made. It is indisputable. We have seen infrastructure levies contribute to the price of land over the last 20 years or so and, in some instances, it has been estimated that infrastructure prices have added an up-front cost of around $100,000, or even more in some cases, to finished allotments. So, $100,000 can be a lot of money to people buying their first home. It was a lot of money to me when I bought my first home. That extra $100,000 could force a young family, young couple or individual, whoever it may be, out of the housing market completely.

It is for this reason that Family First remains adamantly opposed to levies that are imposed before infrastructure is provided. We are wary of a system that would allow a charge, and in some instances multiple charges, to be passed on via infrastructure levies without the certainty of knowing what percentage the user will pay for the infrastructure, and what term and when the levy will fall due. What do they get for their money, in simple terms?

Family First is also conscious of the ever-increasing reliance upon the rental market by, in particular, low to middle socioeconomic groups who will ultimately end up bearing the cost of the infrastructure levy as these charges are passed through in increased rent charges. Landlords will pass those costs on: that is a simple fact. We are creating a further inequality for those who are least able to pay.

This bill offers various infrastructure funding models which could be applied to recover the cost of what is loosely termed essential infrastructure for the state. The impositions of the levies, the extent of the definition of 'essential infrastructure' and the proportion of the cost of infrastructure to each household is subject to ministerial discretion. This is something that needs to be further worked through.

These funding models present a move from the current system whereby certain infrastructure and services have traditionally been provided by the state and funded through general revenue and borrowing. Additionally, under this bill, the levies could be applied anywhere, whether that be a new or even existing development. The HIA has commented that the bill may even allow the minister to use levies to fund civil infrastructure associated with new or even existing suburbs.

One quick example of that might be this. We hear all this talk about a tram out through North Adelaide or The Parade, or I have heard of one on Magill Road as well. Who pays for that? Currently, the state government pays, essentially. They might get a grant from the federal government but, essentially, it is state government funded through people's tax revenue. But what happens under the proposed infrastructure levy model that is in this bill? The answer is: we do not know.

It could be that the residents in that local area, let's say those who live around The Parade, all have an increase in their council rates. What about the people who might get on the tram here in the city and catch it out to The Parade who enjoy the tram but do not live anywhere near it: they might live somewhere else? How does all this work? Where is the equity in this? That is not explained in any detail in this bill and we have really significant concerns about it.

The negative impact of these reforms on the future residential development process in South Australia and, more directly, on land prices and housing affordability, could be significant, as it would be to ratepayers in areas affected—as it seems from what is proposed in this bill.

As an essential platform to improving housing affordability, it is vital for governments to maintain a plentiful supply of land for new homes in both capital cities and regional centres. We do not believe that the government has clearly explained why yet another additional tax on home owners is being introduced to fund state infrastructure, especially since it is infrastructure that is currently funded through general taxation as in the example I have just given. We simply do not support the infrastructure levies as they are currently proposed.

The submissions I have received have all criticised the current infrastructure levy proposal, particularly the lack of safeguards placed within this part. To be fair, however, there has been an acknowledgement that, applied correctly, infrastructure levies can be valuable. I am not going to go through all the submissions, in the interests of time—other members have done that in some detail—but there is no dispute that the LGA and the main industry bodies are very concerned about this particular issue.

Indeed, the UDIA, the HIA and the LGA, as well as the MBA and the Property Council, to name a few organisations, have all indicated willingness to consider infrastructure levies and to further consider them. They are open to debate and discussion after further consultation. Family First is open to further discussions as well, regarding a constructive way in which infrastructure levies can bring about necessary and beneficial development for industry and community.

All industry groups that I have spoken with have asked why the government is pushing ahead so quickly with these reforms. The speed at which this bill has been pushed through the Legislative Council, despite the government having advised that it could be two to three years before all the regulations and policies are drafted to complement the operation of this bill, is just simply inappropriate. Family First echoes the questions of industry and indeed the LGA: why is this bill being fast-tracked?

Surely, a better way forward would be to postpone this debate, find a mutually agreeable position for all parties—and I do not mean political parties: I mean all of the affected parties; that is, the LGA and all the industry groups, and any other group that might want to have a reasonable contribution to the debate around infrastructure—and then return and do this bill properly next year, from what I would think would be an agreed position.

In my discussion with the industry groups and the LGA, they are not that far apart. There is a model they are working on together, but they cannot do it in a week or two weeks. Why not let them have a look at things over Christmas, with the government, obviously—and presumably the opposition and any other party that may want to have its 10 cents worth, but predominantly with the government, obviously—and then come back. I think an agreement could be reached whereby everyone would be happy.

From discussions I have had with industry, that is the case. This approach would be supported by industry, which I think is very important, it would be supported by the LGA, and it would allow the parliament the appropriate time to ensure due diligence on this most important matter. It looks like I have gone over time; my apologies for that, but I have got a little more I need to say.

Another area of great concern for Family First is the sheer amount of complaints we receive about the declaration of so-called 'heritage areas' within various councils. Currently, councils are able to declare heritage conservation zones. Most significantly, despite these declarations causing significant impost on homeowners within that zone, these declarations can be and are frequently made without the support of those directly affected by them.

This means that, to modify a property if one of these so-called heritage conservation zones is put in place—whether that be simply maintenance such as painting the frontage, or demolishing a house that is in ruins—the level of compliance, time and costs increase significantly, and in some cases, exponentially.

Family First recognise there are legitimate areas which form a unique part of our state and national heritage and should therefore be preserved. However—and we feel very strongly about this—we do not agree with creating red tape and impost for homeowners in instances where the vast majority of owners in the area actually affected do not want their home or their area to be listed as a so-called heritage conservation zone in the first place.

It seems in so many instances that the differing levels of government have forgotten that it is the people and their interests that they have been elected to represent. At this stage, I indicate that I am currently taking advice regarding amendments which will create better rights for homeowners when it comes to the issue of heritage. Specifically, the amendments I am considering will address this issue of heritage that I have raised, as well as heritage zones created under our current system.

At the moment, a council has the power to introduce what is called a heritage conservation zone, as I have just said, and, as I have alluded to, often without the consent of the affected owner. I do not believe that this is right. My amendments propose that, where an area is to be declared heritage, such as a section of a suburb and the like, the overseeing authority must first consult and garner a majority support of all the owners of property in that proposed heritage area.

If these amendments were successful, an area could not be designated as a heritage conservation zone where the majority of property owners—the people who actually pay their own money to live there—directly affected in the area do not agree with it. Why should somebody's house be listed in a heritage conservation zone if the majority of people in that area do not want that zone?

Given the vast representation and experience with this particular issue, a further amendment that we are investigating is whether we can extend this to existing heritage conservation zones. That requires consultation to be undertaken with the owners of the property within the existing zones—the ones that councils have already somewhat arbitrarily put in place. In instances where there is not a majority agreement to list that area as a heritage conservation zone, then the zone would be abolished.

I will just give you an example of this. I believe this is very significant and important. Some people would have heard this story—and to those, forgive me if I am repeating myself—but many would not, and I think it is important to put it on the public record. The example is about me, but there are many others that are affected. I use my own example because I am most familiar with it, and I declare that at the outset.

Some may be aware that I purchased a rental property in the Prospect city council area about a year ago roughly; October was when it was last year I think. Prior to doing that, I rang up Prospect city council—I could have been any citizen: I did not identify myself as anyone in particular, I was just Dennis on the phone. I asked the gentleman on the end of the phone who worked in planning at that council, 'I am planning on buying a property,' and I gave him the address, 'I just want to know, are there any restrictions on that property with respect to demolition? Because the intention would be that we would look to build a home there for my wife and daughter to live in one day and we very much want to demolish that home. If we can't demolish that home, if there are any restrictions on demolishing that home, I will not proceed with the purchase.' I was quite explicit and quite clear.

The gentleman on the other end of the phone replied that there were no restrictions whatsoever, that it was perfectly legitimate for me to buy that property with the intention of demolishing it at some future stage. I had indicated to him that it was probably 15 years hence or thereabouts, and he saw no issues with that whatsoever. He was quite emphatic. So, I went and paid the nearly $700,000 or whatever it was the next day to purchase this property. It is done and we own it.

Of course, not two months after that conversation—less than two months, maybe six, seven or eight weeks, something like that—the Prospect city council lists what they call a heritage conservation zone for a whole lot of the areas within Prospect, of course including the particular property that I had specifically inquired about during that phone call. It is dishonest, they misled as it turns out me but no doubt many other people who were planning to make these decisions, and it is just entirely wrong.

You should not be able to create a situation where somebody buys something—a very substantial purchase these days, in the order of $700,000—for a great deal of money in good faith and then the council changes their mind two months later. Even worse than that, they did not change their mind: they knew when they told me that it was not going to happen. They knew, when they told me that it could be demolished, that they were not telling the truth, because they already had agreed to a draft plan which was being shuffled between them and the minister's office, as I understand. There is no question at all that what I was told that day was false, and not only was it false, they knew it was false. That is entirely wrong.

That is my own example. How many other dozens, hundreds, potentially thousands, I would imagine, or maybe possibly tens of thousands of individuals have faced that exact same situation over the years? It is entirely wrong, particularly when you are dealing with very substantial amounts of money. Governments of any level, state, federal or local, should not be lying to their constituents, should not be telling them falsehoods because it suits their purposes.

Just to finish that particular account of what happened, since that time, one of the individual residents of that area has since—her property is affected by this heritage conservation zone, which she strongly objects to—decided to knock on every door within that zone, with every single house within the proposed zone, and determine what the residents' attitudes were that were directly affected. There are 271 dwellings within this proposed area. She knocked on all of their doors, and she had a petition, which will be lodged in this parliament shortly, signed by 158 owners of those dwellings (of the 271) directly opposing it.

So, who do these people think they are that they can just change the zoning of a property that people go out and work every day of their life to pay off because it suits them when the majority of people directly affected in that area do not even want it? It is arrogance in the extreme, it is fundamentally wrong, in my case they were blatantly dishonest, and this sort of thing deserves rectifying. That is why I started this contribution by saying that the government is on the right track here and we support the general thrust of what they are trying to do. That is my own story. I do not often give stories directly affecting me, but it is obviously not about me—it is much bigger than that—but it serves the purpose well of highlighting the point that would affect so many other people.

I might just mention that I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell has an amendment. It will not surprise the Hon. Mr Parnell, I think, to know that we will not be supporting all of his amendments. He has one that we are particularly interested in, which I need to have a closer look at. He only introduced it yesterday but I understand that, should it pass, it will not allow governments at any level to rezone properties without the individuals affected agreeing to it. I think that is fundamental. If that is correct, if that is what the amendment does, and I need to have a closer look at it to determine that, but if that is the effect of that amendment then I will be supporting it strongly.

In conclusion, Family First supports the government in addressing the issues around planning and development. Indeed, I think it is a very worthwhile pursuit and I commend them for it. We are not against the bill in its entirety, in fact we support the majority of it, but there are glaring issues which need to be addressed quickly if this bill is to pass within the next couple of weeks, as I am told it will; namely, appropriate changes to the proposed infrastructure levy system, which I have outlined; the urban growth boundary, we will not support it; and also, adequately addressing so-called issues of heritage or false heritage.

There is one further example I should give on the example I gave about the Prospect property. It was suggested to be a 1920s villa. It is not a 1920s villa, it was built in the forties. I was told that the veranda was of significant heritage value. The current owners have since informed me that the veranda was an addition in the seventies. One thing you might want to get right, if you are going to put in place a conservation zone somewhere, is to actually know what you are preserving, know what you want to conserve. Get it right, for goodness sake. It really is inexplicable.

As I have said, changes to the current system are needed, but cannot and must not be at the expense of a thorough and considered review by the industry and, indeed, by this parliament. I would urge the government to listen to the pleas of industry, to consult further on these proposed changes, to ensure the best possible outcome for planning, development and infrastructure in this state.

I would just reiterate: I think—well, not I think, I know, they have told me and I have no doubt they have told other members, including the government—the industry groups are not far away from agreement, even agreement with the LGA, which does not happen every day. We could get genuine unanimous support for the infrastructure levies in this bill if we were just prepared to take the time. I think if the government was willing to come back in February and put this bill through then, that in that time the industry groups and the LGA would reach an agreement which I think would be beneficial to all. So, that is my appeal to the government: please consider that. That said, I look forward to considering the amendments that are to be put forward on this bill. It is a very significant piece of legislation. Family First has made its position clear and we look forward to the ensuing debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT