- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 20 October 2005
Crown Lands Amendment (Access to Property) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 5 of 42
| Next Item »
Page: 19034
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 24 March 2005.
Mr STEVEN PRINGLE (Hawkesbury) [10.57 a.m.]: The Crown Lands Amendment (Access to Property) Bill, introduced by the honourable member for Hornsby, seeks to amend the Crown Lands Act 1989. It has my full support and that of many hundreds of my constituents. Schedule 1 of the bill, if passed and enacted, will insert new section 35A into the Crown Lands Act 1989. It will require, when determining or redetermining rent under the Crown Lands Act 1989 with respect to a lease, licence or enclosure permit that provides water access to the lease, licence or permit holder's property, that consideration be given as to whether the lease, licence or permit provides the only reasonable means of access to that property. That is the key point: only reasonable access to that property.
The central purpose of the bill is to insert an element of fairness and equity into the management of waterfront access rights for property owners whose only access is by the waterways. It is hardly a controversial issue. These people do not have road access. Before the bill can be considered properly we need to look at the history of the issue and how, incredibly, we have arrived at the point where the only recourse open to the affected property owners, whose sole access to their land is via our waterways, is the passage of this bill. In October 2003 the former Premier asked the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] to review and report on the rent that the Government should charge for the use of public land in relation to waterfront usages. The key recommendation contained in the IPART report is:
The Tribunal recommends that the minimum rental be set at $350 per year and indexed each year using CPI as an escalation factor. This minimum rent will be payable where the rent calculated from the formula is less that $350.
On the surface that seems okay. One could argue that New South Wales waterways are public facilities and that appropriate rental should be charged for their use as access to properties but, unfortunately IPART has not taken into account the full consequences of its recommendations. On the surface it seems a reasonable proposition that rental fees should be charged for access on public waterways and for the use of public lands and seabeds, pontoons, jetties and marinas and for the owners' ongoing use. Unfortunately, not all property owners have access to their land via an alternative means, in other words, across land. These are water-access-only properties. Many of them do not have a driveway and their owners do not have a car or a bike parked at the property.
Ms Linda Burney: They live on the water.
Mr STEVEN PRINGLE: They live on the water and they deserve the same sorts of facilities enjoyed by people who do not live on the water. As it commonly does with other areas of public policy, the State Government appears to have arrogantly assumed that all these waterfront properties are owned by silvertails, that they are the domain of the rich and famous and as such their owners deserves to be slugged an extra $350 a year. But that is not the case. Since the introduction of the $350 rental charge in the 2003 mini-budget, the State Government, particularly the Minister for Lands, has continually ignored the arguments put by the Water Only Access [WOA] group and the Waterfront Environment Access Reform [WEAR] organisation.
In May 2004 Kevin Cooper, a resident affected by the changes, raised issues on behalf of WEAR. This group has been battling for ages and I know the honourable member for Hornsby has been trying to have this bill debated in this House, where we know it takes a long time to get issues dealt with properly. Mr Cooper recommends that waterfront owners whose sole access to their property is via the water need to get a fair deal and be considered as a whole. On behalf of WEAR, Mr Cooper presented a paper detailing objections to the recommendations in the IPART report and requested support from the members of this House, including the Government—something that is not unreasonable. He wants a guarantee of the most basic of Australian principles: the right of access to one's own property without being charged by the Government.
Since the meeting I have been flooded with phone calls, emails, letters and interviews from affected constituents who are angry at the imposition of yet another annual charge on Australian households. I am sure that people in Macquarie Street would agree that it is not a reasonable charge as against the right to free and fair access to one's place of residence. It is abundantly clear from submissions to the IPART review, as well as feedback from constituents, that the IPART review was rushed and carried out in what appears to be a secretive manner. A member of a well-known team that has been integral to the success of the Australian Labor Party, the famous Blanche d'Alpuget, Bob Hawke's partner, is concerned—and if she is concerned, everyone in the Government should be concerned. Mr Hawke may not have got it right in the past but clearly Blanche, I am sure on behalf of Bob as well, has got it right. She wrote:
I am a "stakeholder" in a waterfront property which may be affected by your review. I have had no notification—
That is bad—
from your tribunal about this review, and only heard about it from neighbours a few days ago. This is despite your website reference to "stakeholder consultation" and providing an opportunity for receipt of public submissions. I therefore request an extension of time, from December 2003 to April 2004, in order to prepare a submission. I also request direct notification from you. Without direct notification your tribunal would seem to be acting stealthily and unjustly to many stakeholders—for example, another neighbour, 89 years old, has cataracts and cannot read the newspapers. As with so many others, he knew nothing of what was planned for him, and without direct notification, he will be left to rely on gossip. This is uncivilised and unacceptable.
It remains uncivilised and unacceptable. Even the Government's strongest supporters are concerned. If it is good enough for Blanche d'Alpuget to be concerned, it is good enough for honourable members opposite to be concerned, as she is right. In June 2004 I received a lot of correspondence advising of a public meeting, organised by affected residents, to be held at the Mooney Mooney Workers Club—workers, the people that Labor pretends to represent, if only that were the case. The notice at the club said that Government representatives and relevant departmental representatives would be present at the meeting. But, lo and behold, the Government and the department were not present, which is what happened at my recent meeting about green zones in north-west Sydney, when a government representative phoned five minutes before the meeting was due to commence and said, "Terribly sorry, we are not coming." Yet again the Government has ignored the legitimate concerns of local, fair dinkum people meeting at the workers club, if only the Government cared about workers.
On 22 June 2004 the then Leader of the Opposition arranged a meeting with the Minister for Lands but it was cancelled by the Minister without any reason—another cancellation to try to avoid a major issue. On 24 June a two-hour meeting was finally held at Parliament House with the honourable member for Peats and Graham Harding and Stephen Francis from the Department of Lands, at which an agreement was reached that Graham Harding, the General Manager of the Department of Lands would review the wording of the licence document, the term of the licence and the amount of guarantee renewal of the licence by 31 August 2004. Later the Minister agreed to meet the then Leader of the Opposition only—not a delegation of affected waterfront property owners. Yet again the Government would not meet with stakeholders. What sort of representatives are they? It is disgraceful that this Government will not meet with ordinary everyday people. Surely a delegation of half a dozen people would have been acceptable.
The then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Hornsby and I then consulted with a lot of stakeholders. Indeed we have received many representations and continually meet with affected people. Our duty as members of Parliament is to take up the concerns of our constituents—and it is hardly some great thing we are doing. Negotiations took place. But unfortunately the time for rhetoric from this Government is well and truly over in relation to this issue. Members of the Government need to put up or shut up. The clear-cut option in relation to this bill is to give ordinary everyday residents a fair go. Waterfront-access-only property owners are already paying too much. Mr Cooper said:
A water access only owner must pay the Department of Lands and Water Conservation [DLWC] [as it then was] an initial application fee of $438 plus an ongoing licence fee generally ranging from $300 to $2,000 per annum. A further $400 wet berthing fee is now being applied to water access only owners for each boat moored alongside a jetty or pontoon.
Generally these people do not have a car or a driveway but have boat-access-only property in areas in which in the past the battlers of Berowra Creek lived. Residents have worked hard during their lives, and now they may have moved out of suburbia and want to enjoy their retirement on the water. As members can clearly see, the State Government already charges water access only property owners for the use of Crown land and now it is adding this cost under these new rental arrangements. Like many of the Government's decisions, this is about short-term revenue raising. These people should be given a fair go. We know this Government is cash-strapped, but ordinary people should not be the ones who have to plug deficits that are created entirely as a result of the waste and mismanagement of members opposite.
Members will recall the advertisements that heralded Mr Iemma's ascension to the premiership—Morris Iemma, yes, that Iemma, not I-amma. Do members remember that? "The new guy who got rid of the vendor tax—a fresh start". Here is the opportunity for the Government and Mr Iemma to scrap the inequitable tax that is being placed on water-access-only property owners. The Government scrapped the vendor duty—about time, as the Opposition benches urged—and now it is time for it to scrap this iniquitous tax. So far the Government has backed down on land tax and vendor duty and we are hearing more positive comments about the green environmental overlay that was slapped on thousands of my constituents in the North West some months ago.
Like land owners affected by the imposition of this now infamous landscape and rural lifestyle zone, water-access-only property owners stood up and fought against the State Government—450 residents at Berowra Waters and 3,500 residents at Rouse Hill. These people are very angry with the Government and are demanding changes that are fair and reasonable. Changes should and can be made to the rental charges for water-access-only property owners. The bill amends the Crown Lands Act 1989 to bring fairness and equity to people who can only access their land by water. The bill is for a relatively small number of people. It will not hurt the Government to agree to it. The number of people affected may be small but the impact on their lifestyles is very severe indeed. The Government does not yet charge people for driving across their driveways, but maybe that is on the agenda. Perhaps the Government will charge people to drive across their driveways into their houses. In the meantime, do not put a similar charge on water-access-only property owners.
I commend local leaders Denis Nobbs, Carol Joy, Kevin Cooper and their team for their dedication and research skills. They have fought a particularly solid fight and have presented logical arguments in a fair, well-reasoned and well-thought-out manner. This is clearly an issue worth fighting for. I call on the Government to get its act together and listen to local residents who have a very serious problem. It is time for a fresh start. The Government should give local people a fair go and the right of access to their properties that it has unfairly taken away.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [11.12 a.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Hornsby, in particular, who sponsored this private member's bill, and the honourable member for Hawkesbury, many of whose constituents are affected by the Government's changes to the way charges are levied on Crown land leases. Both members have vehemently stood up for their constituents. This issue may not affect tens of thousands of people, but it is an important issue for every individual who is affected.
It is a testament to the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby that they stand up for every constituent in their electorates. This bill is no exception. They have made a very strong case to me as the Opposition spokesman for Lands and to the shadow cabinet and our joint party room to make this Coalition policy. That is what being a member of Parliament is about: standing up for your constituents. It is easy to do it when thousands of them are coming through your door, but the real test of a good member of Parliament is to stand up for a relatively small number of people. That is what the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby have done. Other members of the Coalition have constituents with water-only access and they have been strong advocates as well.
I want to echo the words of the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Hornsby about the Government. The Government is extremely greedy and will do anything for money. A lot of Labor members think that anyone with a water-access-only property is a multimillionaire who can afford these sorts of increases. Nothing could be further from the truth for many of the people affected by these changes. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, a lot of people have worked damn hard to get a house, as all of us do, but these people happen to have houses that have access only by water. They will be penalised by the Government for having bought such a house. As the honourable member for Hawkesbury said, the Government has not yet charged people to back out of their drive and onto their road, but one never knows with this Government. There is no tax that it would not be interested in levying. Why does the Government think it is fair to levy this sort of a tax on someone with a water-access-only property?
The only explanation I can think of is the Government's financial mismanagement of New South Wales. Despite the billions of dollars of revenue that has flowed into the Treasury through the property boom and the GST—one billion dollars a year more than forecast when the GST was introduced—the Government now finds itself with a budget deficit of at least $700 million. The Government cannot do anything about the burgeoning bureaucracy because it is beholden to the unions. I often wonder who runs New South Wales. I have some doubt that it is the Government; rather, it is the unions that run this State. When the Government was talking about restructuring the health boards and the area health services it said, "Oh, well, we're still working it out because we are trying to get agreement from the unions." The question every taxpayer in New South Wales will be asking is: "Don't we elect members of Parliament to represent us and run New South Wales?" I wonder about that sometimes when we hear about the power the unions have over the Labor Party.
Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: The member has completely strayed from the bill. If he would come back to it, it would probably help everyone.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order. I remind the honourable member for Murrumbidgee that he should confine his remarks to the bill.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: I believe my comments are relevant to the bill because it is about the State Government earning additional revenue through charging these people additional lease payments. My point is that if the Government ran the finances of New South Wales properly, it would not have to make these sorts of decisions and put its hands in more people's pockets to get more money out of them. Part of the problem is that the Government has its hands tied to some degree in making reforms that would save money because it is beholden to the union movement. Unions donate about $6 million per electoral cycle to the Labor Party. They do not do it out of generosity and because they are terrific people. They want some payback for the $6 million, and that is what we are seeing. That is a great tragedy for New South Wales.
We have had a great opportunity to do good things with the revenue New South Wales has been earning, but the unions are holding us back. That is the reason the Government has changed the rentals on Crown land, particularly in this case. I call on the Government to stand up to the unions. Okay, they give it $6 million every electoral cycle, but the Government is elected to run New South Wales the way the taxpayers want it run, not the way the unions want it run. Take the burden off people who have water-access-only properties; take the burden off people who use our roads and pay tolls. Honourable members will recall Bob Carr's famous promise to abolish the tolls on the M5 and wherever else. The Government has broken a thousand promises relating to tax cuts. That is why New South Wales finds itself in this financial mess.
The Labor Party thinks that anyone who has a water-access-only property is rich and therefore should be taxed. It is interesting to note that that is how it develops policy. But it does not mind taking donations from some very rich people. It charges people $1,000 a head to attend fundraisers. It takes money from Macquarie Bank, Westpac and all the so-called rich people, but it does not miss an opportunity to whack people whom it regards as being rich. But, according to what the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Hawkesbury have told me, it is off target. The Labor Party still suffers from class envy, which is one of the reasons why it does not want to do anything for people whose property can be accessed only by water.
I commend the honourable member for Hornsby and the honourable member for Hawkesbury for the way they stand up for their constituents. I wish the Labor Party would stick up for the taxpayers of New South Wales and get its house in order. About 18 months are left before the Labor Party will be kicked out of government. It still has time to do the right thing for the taxpayers of New South Wales by getting off their backs, taking its hands out of their pockets and starting to run the State the right way. I hope the Government supports the bill, which supports hardworking people who happen to have properties that are accessible only by water.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.21 a.m.]: On behalf of the Government I oppose the bill. I am not sure who on behalf of those on the other side does the research or who monitors what is going on in this House, but this private member's bill was made redundant by the Government's recent legislation that recognises the particular circumstances of water-access-only residences and makes available to eligible residents a rebate on rent. We oppose the bill because it is redundant.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: The honourable member for Canterbury is misleading the House. Obviously, she has not done her homework. If she had bothered to read my second reading speech she would have realised that the Government's bill does not alter the content or relevance of my bill or supplant it.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! There is no point of order.
Ms LINDA BURNEY: In the last session of Parliament the Crown Lands Act was amended to recognise the particular circumstances of waterfront property owners whose only access to their homes is by water. This stemmed from last year's Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] inquiry into waterfront rents, which accepted the Government's position that the taxpayers of New South Wales deserve to be compensated appropriately—a key aspect that those on the other side should remember. The Government asked IPART to examine the rents charged for water-access-only properties.
Recent amendments to the Crown Lands Act reflect IPART's recommendations that owner-occupiers of water-access-only residences are eligible for a $250 rebate on their annual rent subject to the minimum rent of $350. Both the minimum rent and the rebate will be linked to the consumer price index. The rebate builds on an automatic rental concession to water-access-only residents. The IPART-approved rental formula that is used to determine the rent is limited to the statutory land value of the adjacent property. It is important to note that considering that average land values for water-access-only properties—
Mrs Judy Hopwood: You don't even live on a waterfront. How would you know?
Ms LINDA BURNEY: No, I do not live on a waterfront, but that is not the point. Considering that average land values for water-access-only properties are significantly lower than properties with road access, their rents have an automatic concession—considerably lower. I was interested to hear the contribution of the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. It is fallacious and hypocritical for him to somehow weave into the debate how New South Wales is reaping the enormous benefits, so-called, of the GST. I will not go over the numbers because people in this House understand the incredibly inequitable distribution of the GST.
Mrs Judy Hopwood: What's that got to do with this bill?
Ms LINDA BURNEY: Exactly!
Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: I ask you to draw the honourable member for Canterbury back to the leave of the bill, which has nothing to do with the GST.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! The honourable member for Canterbury should confine her remarks to the bill.
Ms LINDA BURNEY: That is absolutely correct. It has absolutely nothing to do with the GST. I am pointing out that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee spoke extensively about the GST. So I agree with the honourable member for Hornsby. She is correct. It is not about the GST. That is the point I was trying to make. I reassure the honourable member for Hawkesbury that the Government, not the unions, is running the State. There are partnerships and synergies, but I can assure him that he can rest easy tonight: We are running this State. I oppose the bill on behalf of the Government.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [11.26 a.m.], in reply: I reiterate that the object of the bill is to amend the Crown Lands Act 1989 to require that when determining or redetermining rent under the Act with respect to a lease, licence or enclosure permit that provides water access to the lease, licence or permit holder's residential property, regard is to be had to whether the lease, licence or permit provides the only reasonable means of access to that property. I thank the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for their contributions, but I am not sure that I can extend my thanks to the honourable member for Canterbury, even though she made some salient points.
Where is the honourable member for Heathcote, who represents people who have water-access-only properties? In conversations with me he cried crocodile tears about the concerns of residents in his electorate with water-access-only properties. He is supposed to represent those people and take their concerns to the Minister. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Heathcote did not contribute to the debate. I hope that his constituents, whom he purports to represent, find out that they have not been represented to the extent that they should have been represented.
The honourable member for Canterbury said my bill is redundant. I reject that: my bill is not redundant. Amendments to the Crown Lands Act to cover water-access-only properties did nothing but insert the term into the Act. Nothing changed. The amendments to the Crown Lands Act already reflected recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. Residents who have water-only access to their properties do not want to be assessed by the same formula as those with land and water access. The rebate is irrelevant to them because their minimum cost is $350, which is much more than some of them have been paying thus far.
I recommend that the honourable member for Canterbury look at the real estate values of water-access-only properties. They are not the lower echelon; they are very much in demand. Properties for sale in my area—Brooklyn, Milsons Passage and Berowra Creek—are not considered secondary to those in the eastern suburbs. I take the response by the honourable member for Canterbury as a total insult. I also take as an insult to the owners of water access only properties that the honourable member for Heathcote, who could have made a contribution to this debate, has not done so.
This Government is totally greedy. It is unfair that this Government imposes recommendations by IPART onto people whose only access to their homes is by water and who suffer all the problems associated with not having road access to their homes. The Government's policy is yet another example of its financial mismanagement and is extremely poor form because it imposes a substantial burden on so few people that one wonders what difference the revenue derived from that policy would make to the coffers of the Government. I am at a loss to understand the response from members on the Government side of the Chamber. I urge Government members to rethink the issue.
The Minister will probably alter the conditions applying to water-access-only properties as a reaction to what the Opposition has had to say and the Opposition's taking the lead in addressing the inequity suffered by water-access-only property owners. I expect that those property owners will be given due consideration in time. I also mention that during a meeting between the Minister, a departmental officer and me the Minister promised to inspect some of the Hawkesbury River and Berowra Creek properties, but I note that the Minister has totally reneged on that promise. That is another appalling example of a Minister not taking an interest in matters affecting his portfolio. I urge all honourable members to support the bill.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 34
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Noes, 46
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Mr Daley
Mr Debus
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr West
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Pairs
Mr Hazzard | Ms Gadiel |
| Ms Seaton | Mr Price |
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Madam ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Marianne Saliba): Order! It being after11.30 a.m. the House will now deal with General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices).
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:54 : Update this page