Mr ANDREW: I rise to speak on the Housing Availability and
Affordability (Planning and Other Legislation Amendment) Bill 2023. According to a statement by the
housing minister, the bill is designed to reduce red tape, unlock land and allow new pathways for
housing developments. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the only red tape this bill removes is the
constraint on the state government from seizing full control of the state’s planning process under the
pretext of addressing a government policy driven housing crisis.
Before I discuss the provisions in the bill, I would like to make some comment on the context
surrounding the bill. As the then deputy premier said at the time, the bill was being introduced in
response to key planning reforms agreed to by all state governments at national cabinet level in August
2023. This commitment included the enactment of the federal Labor National Planning Reform
Blueprint. The blueprint’s reform platform includes updating state, regional and local planning schemes
to promote high-density housing close to existing public transport connections, amenities and
employment and streamlining development approvals pathways.
This context was acknowledged by the Deputy Premier when he said in his introductory speech
that the bill would enable the government to ‘get our fair share of the new federal funding, which is
directly dependent on these types of planning reforms’.
According to the National Planning Reform Blueprint, the state’s planning reforms must be aimed
at: updating state, regional and local strategic plans; undertaking planning, zoning, land release and
other reforms such as increasing density; streamlining approval pathways, including strengthened callin
powers; planning amendments that support diverse housing across a range of areas; promoting
medium- and high-density housing in well located areas close to existing public transport hubs, amenities and employment; reforms to address barriers to the timely issuing of development approvals;
and consideration of the phased introduction of inclusionary zoning and planning.
Clauses 4, 39 and 43 of the bill significantly expand the state’s powers for acquiring privately
held landholding—including by compulsory acquisition—and creating easements to facilitate highdensity
developments. While local governments currently have the same powers under section 263 of
the Planning Act to take or purchase land for a planning purpose, it is a power that has seldom been
used. It is critical that the power to acquire land by the state for development purposes must be fairly
balanced with protecting property rights. The bill removes this balance. Moreover, the state’s new
powers for acquisition will allow the state to confer beneficial rights to a third party or give measurable
benefits to a third party. As one submitter pointed out—
… the proposed change in legislation creates a nexus whereby a landowner is effectively subject to a pincer movement by both
private and government interests working in unison to force landowner into submission.
Clause 106D of the bill creates a new alternative development approval pathway, called a state
facilitated application. This gives the minister a reserve power to declare a development a state
facilitated application provided it relates to an urban purpose and has been determined a priority for the
state.
Designated state facilitated applications will be assessed by the minister through a streamlined
assessment process. In assessing the application, the minister may consider a planning scheme but,
then again, he or she may not. Ultimately, however, normal assessment rules requiring a referral and
public notification process as well as code and impact assessments will not apply for developments
deemed a state facilitated’ development. Third party appeal rights through the Planning and
Environment Court have also been removed. Included in the bill is a new reserve power enabling the
planning minister to direct a local government to amend its local planning scheme to reflect a state
interest. This is pretty much like the Native Title Act’s section 24KA, which takes away rights to stop the
government from being able to do anything with tribal people in this state. If the local government does
not make the amendments as directed, the minister may take action to enforce the amendment and
recover the cost of doing so from the local government.
The only limitation placed on the state’s new power seems to be that the minister must be
satisfied that the matter has been subject to adequate public consultation. There has not been a lot of
consultation with what goes on. I bring to the attention of the House e-petition 4044-24 by Amanda
Dapontes. She talks about the threshold for land tax. It is a current petition and I would like to think that
all landholders in Queensland would sign it. There has not been any adjustment to the threshold for
16 years. If this government were serious about ensuring housing affordability, that threshold would
have been adjusted. It is in this petition. Basically, it does not keep up with the median house price,
which increases land tax and stamp duty, which is very important and makes housing affordability very
difficult.
We have to look at all the situations that would save money and allow people to move into and
out of houses at the right price, the government must keep up with these thresholds. The only limitation
to be placed on the state’s new power seems to be that the minister must be satisfied that the matter
has been subject to adequate public consultation. I say that again because there has not been much
consultation with the government for quite some time. In terms of regulatory impact statements,
consultation, anything to do with renewables, the dam in my electorate—and take a look at the
homeschooling people who were here today—there is very little consultation. The wording of this
provision makes it clear that it will be at the minister’s own discretion as to what adequate public
consultation may entail, which is probably zero given the government’s track record on the last few bills
it has pushed through the House.
This new power will allow the state government to circumvent local planning instruments
prepared with and for local communities. All of this is completely contrary to the principle of transparent,
democratic and best practice decision-making. Moreover, it will seriously undermine the ability of local
governments, individual property owners and the community to decide what level of high-density
development they are willing or able to accommodate. It is bound to seriously erode public trust in the
state’s planning system. As the Planning Institute of Australia submission points out—
In simple terms, if the State is able to disregard local planning instruments, the community may question why resources are put
into making local planning instruments, including community engagement, when the State can declare that particular applications
are not bound by this process. Through the bill’s changes, the government is abrogating for itself an automatic right to develop
any unbuilt or infill land and to permit changes of use on already developed sites—powers that will no
doubt be used to increase the density and height of developments within our suburbs and facilitate the
demolition of current buildings to make way for much higher density developments. This is a policy the
government is already pursuing, along with its incentives for high density living through build-to-rent
public-private partnerships with foreign owned investment trusts.
In Britain, a similar overhaul of the country’s planning laws allowed developers to convert
commercial offices to homes without going through a proper approval process. Between 2016 and
2019, an estimated 70 per cent of the United Kingdom’s new housing was one-bedroom apartments or
studios. Some 60,000 new homes were created from converted office spaces at the clear expense of
people’s living standards. Some were as small as 16 square metres or 172 square feet. In some cases,
apartments were built that did not even have windows. Designed for low-income residents with few
options, such housing became known for its poor quality, with developers rightly accused of ‘human
warehousing’. The bill before the House should be called the ‘Smart Cities Bill’ or the ‘Smart Housing
Bill’, because I believe that is what it is really aimed at achieving.
In New South Wales, the state government has been much more up-front about its
implementation of the National Planning Blueprint Reform Agreement. A summary of planning changes
being introduced include: a maximum building height of six storeys; no minimum lot size or width; new
design criteria for midrise apartment buildings, including building separations, setbacks, vehicle access,
parking spaces, visual privacy and open space areas; mandatory affordable housing contributions; and
developers to access an accelerated approval process if the development adopts the endorsed pattern
book designs for buildings. I think we can take it as given that the same measures will be adopted in
Queensland. However, in Queensland’s case, as usual, they have elected for these measures only to
become known once the bill’s broad regulatory powers are engaged after the primary legislation has
passed.
The bill’s new state facilitated development pathway overrides local government and the
democratic will of our communities. It will also have a major impact on individual property rights. That
alone should have driven home the need for comprehensive regulatory impact statements to have been
carried out. As usual, that has not been done. How surprising! This ongoing refusal