A Dangerous Communist Law in South Australia, By James Reed
Terrible laws with enormous consequences get passed all the time without public consultation. That is why it is good that George Christensen now has the funds to attend sittings of federal parliament and report back on what is going on. The same thing needs to be done at the state level as well. Consider the South Australian example of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Use of Vacant Land) Amendment Bill, and I rely upon an email post by Alex Antic here. The Bill, proposed by the socialist Greens, was passed by the South Australian Legislative Council, and if it becomes law, will allow the government to take control of privately owned land it deems to be "primarily vacant" and "not being sufficiently used or developed" without paying compensation, provided "reasonable steps" have been taken to negotiate with the owner. Land will be seized for purposes like temporary housing, no doubt for the mass immigration population. There is, Antic notes, no specification of what counts as underdeveloped land, or how long the negotiation process continues. Thus, in principle, someone who has a block of land, and is working to save up for building a house could get challenged under this law. The land could be stolen with no compensation. The no compensation clause is the real killer, apart from taking the land in the first placed. It smacks of totalitarian unfairness, which is a common trait among Labor governments and the Greens, where power is abused to override basic traditional liberal rights, as seen in the free speech censorship laws, and attempted control of social media. Of course, the Greens across this country, both state and federal, are even worse. In full government, they would be an apocalyptic power.
This law is a concern as it is a threat to the basic foundations of the right to private property, where owners have no obligation to develop housing for mass immigration. It's the government's problem; go solve it if they must bring them in. Here are Antic's comments:
|
Use of Vacant Land Bill proposes that local or state governments could assume control of privately owned land without consent — and without compensation. It is not only outrageous but dangerous.
Last Wednesday, 4 June, an assault on fundamental property rights was launched in the Legislative Council.
The Greens' Use of Vacant Land legislation, passed the chamber threatening a cornerstone of our legal system.
This Bill proposes that local or state governments could assume control of privately owned land without consent — and without compensation. It is not only outrageous but dangerous.
This approach distracts from the real and pressing issues driving housing undersupply. In many cases, it is government delays — not private owners — that are holding up development-ready land.
"The Bill is focused on the wrong problem. In many cases, if there is land that's vacant that could have housing put on it, I've got heaps of members that want to build more houses," says UDIA SA Chief Executive, Liam Golding speaking to FiveAA.
"They want to get out there, they want to solve the housing crisis that we're in. But the hold-up isn't the fact that they don't want to do it or can't do it, it's that they can't get infrastructure, they can't get the permissions, the planning consent to actually go on and build."
By creating a mechanism for the State to potentially delay or obstruct development, and then step in to repurpose the land, this Bill sets a deeply troubling precedent. It undermines the certainty that is essential for private investment in housing supply — particularly at a time when the sector is under immense pressure to deliver.
Speaking at the Legislative Council last Wednesday, Greens' Robert Simms MLC says, the Use of Vacant Land Bill "seeks to address the housing crisis by allowing the government to step in and place temporary housing on vacant land in circumstances where the owner is unable or unwilling to undertake development".
Far from helping the housing crisis, this proposal could actually hurt efforts to counter the crisis. Both by introducing uncertainty and risk into the development process and by diverting focus and resources away from delivering the infrastructure and long-term planning needed for real, permanent housing solutions.
This Bill was presented by the Greens at a time when many were distracted by the release of the 2025–26 State Budget.
The State Budget, released on 5 June, clearly shows that it is supercharged revenue from the property and development sector that is underpinning Government surpluses — and these sectors vehemently oppose the Bill.
"The Bill threatens fundamental property rights in South Australia by allowing government to take control of privately owned land without consent or compensation.
"It risks undermining investment confidence and distracts from the real causes of housing undersupply, such as delayed infrastructure and planning approvals," says Arvin Bisbal, Director of Solesse, a UDIA SA member.
"This legislation is deeply concerning. I've long raised alarm about the housing crisis we face, but this proposal is not a credible solution.
"We need to unlock development, yes — but for those who are actually capable of delivering it. That means empowering developers, not councils or others ill-equipped to solve a problem of this scale," says Annoushka Scharnberg, Partner at Mills Oakley, a fellow UDIA SA member.
The UDIA urges the Government to reject this Use of Vacant Land Bill and instead work with industry to address the root causes of housing supply challenges — starting with timely infrastructure delivery and planning reform.
"I've already reached out to the government to raise our concerns, to point out that this bill should not progress any further, that this can't become law, because where we are in South Australia, everyone relies on property rights as the foundation of our entire system. So our society is potentially being upended," says Liam.
"Michelle Lensink, Shadow Minister for Housing and Planning, has been on the record in Parliament last night opposing this Bill. And the property industry absolutely congratulates the Liberal Party for taking a sensible approach to this Bill."
Comments