Economic Development and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill transforms Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) from a primarily commercial development agency into one with an explicit mandate to deliver social and affordable housing. It gives EDQ new powers to acquire land, impose housing requirements on developers, invest in property assets, and lead coordinated urban renewal through new Place Renewal Areas. The bill also restructures EDQ as a more independent entity with its own CEO, board, and employing office.
Who it affects
Property developers in Priority Development Areas will face new social and affordable housing requirements. Landowners near these areas may be affected by new compulsory acquisition powers, though with fair compensation protections. Queenslanders seeking affordable housing may benefit from increased housing supply over time.
Key changes
- Social and affordable housing delivery becomes a core purpose of the Economic Development Act, with new legal definitions for both
- EDQ gains reserve powers to compulsorily acquire land for infrastructure or to implement Place Renewal Frameworks, with fair compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967
- Developers in Priority Development Areas can be required to provide social or affordable housing, or pay an amount in lieu, as a condition of development approval
- A new Place Renewal Area and Framework system allows EDQ to take a leadership role in coordinating urban renewal within Priority Development Areas
- EDQ is restructured with a Governor-in-Council-appointed CEO, an independent board including the Under-Treasurer and up to 6 non-government members, strategic and operational planning requirements, and a separate employing office
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee20 Mar 2024View Hansard
Referred to Housing, Big Build and Manufacturing Committee
The Cost of Living and Economics Committee examined the Economic Development and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 and recommended it be passed. The committee received 34 submissions and held public hearings, with stakeholders raising concerns about the breadth of compulsory land acquisition powers, the need for greater local government consultation, and the adequacy of social and affordable housing provisions. While the committee identified potential limitations on human rights including property rights and privacy, it was satisfied these were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
Key findings (5)
- Stakeholders broadly supported the bill's aim to expand Economic Development Queensland's role in delivering diverse housing, but some argued social and affordable housing should be the primary focus rather than merely an example of diverse housing.
- Local governments and water utilities raised significant concerns about EDQ's new direction powers, particularly the potential financial impacts of being directed to accept land transfers or provide infrastructure without adequate consultation.
- The Property Council and other stakeholders argued the compulsory land acquisition powers were too broad and called for clearer safeguards, publicly available guidelines, and limits on acquiring council-owned land without agreement.
- Environmental groups including the Queensland Conservation Council argued the bill's ecological sustainability provisions were inadequate and called for stronger requirements around climate resilience, carbon emissions reduction, and nature-positive outcomes.
- Concerns were raised about infrastructure charges being transferred from local governments to EDQ, with councils warning this could leave them unable to fund critical infrastructure already committed or expended.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Economic Development and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading11 June 2024View Hansard
▸18 members spoke9 support1 oppose8 mixed
As the sponsoring minister, moved the second reading and defended the bill as necessary to enhance EDQ's capacity to deliver social and affordable housing faster, directly supporting the Homes for Queenslanders policy.
“This bill is about the Miles government building on the role of Economic Development Queensland—the Queensland government's land use planning and property development agency—and putting it to even better use to deliver more homes for Queenslanders faster.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Announced the LNP would not vote against the bill but was heavily critical of the government for taking 10 years to act on the housing crisis, raised stakeholder concerns about retrospectivity, compulsory acquisition powers, and lack of consultation with local government and industry.
“We will not vote against the bill today. We will allow passage of the bill but we will express the concerns that the industry and the local government have.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
As committee chair, supported the bill and emphasised the bipartisan committee report recommending passage without reservation. Highlighted how EDQ developments in his electorate have helped thousands of young families access housing.
“The aim of this bill is to enhance EDQ's capacity through governance, resourcing, commercial and operational structures in order to increase housing supply, affordability and diversity.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Confirmed the LNP would not vote against the bill as any effort to address housing shortages should be supported, but criticised the bill as a kneejerk reaction four months before an election and argued it would not solve the housing crisis.
“The LNP will not be voting against this legislation because any effort to satisfy the lack of housing in Queensland will be supported.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and highlighted Beenleigh as a prime candidate for the new place renewal framework, arguing it needed coordinated urban renewal to unlock its potential as a satellite commuter hub.
“I welcome EDQ's further involvement in urban renewal in Queensland. I would welcome such a framework in my own area to kickstart renewal and investment.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
As a committee member, stated the opposition supports the bill because EDQ powers are important levers for government, but criticised the government for taking almost a decade to bring the reforms forward and for failing to collaborate with the community housing sector and local government.
“The opposition supports this bill because we know that these are some of the levers that government can pull to help to facilitate development in regional areas.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a committee member, highlighting the success of a PDA in her electorate at Oxley that delivered 80 new homes, a kindergarten relocation and bushland restoration.
“There is no doubt that EDQ and the PDAs that they work on have a really important role to play in building homes for Queenslanders.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but criticised the government for acting too slowly, arguing the housing crisis was foreseeable from population projections available over a decade ago and that infrastructure delivery on the northern Gold Coast has been inadequate.
“The government failed to plan and plans to fail in that regard, and it certainly plans to fail on the northern Gold Coast.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Opposed the bill, arguing it serves property developers rather than addressing the housing crisis, criticised PDAs for cutting out community consultation, and argued the affordable housing provisions contain loopholes through offsets that could result in zero social or affordable housing in priority development areas.
“Labor truly believes that for-profit property developers will save us from the housing crisis and this bill is just the next measure designed to speed up the approvals process to help make developers as much money as possible.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as one of many measures to address housing, arguing it would increase housing supply and make housing more affordable. Criticised both the LNP and Greens for their positions on housing.
“This bill will do something that the Greens do not seem to understand. It will increase housing supply in our state.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but argued the government has no ability to deliver despite good intentions, criticising overregulation, failure to work with local government and industry, and using Caboolture West as an example of planning failure.
“This government can table legislation. I do not say that it has bad intentions, but it has no ability to deliver and act in a timely way.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and the broader Homes for Queenslanders plan, arguing that EDQ's new operating model would kickstart crucial urban and residential developments and deliver more affordable and social housing.
“EDQ will get a new operating model to deliver more affordable and social housing across Queensland.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Acknowledged the bill as another aspect of efforts to address housing but raised concerns about the need for greater consultation, agreed with stakeholders calling for expanded powers to be exercised in a balanced manner, and questioned whether the bill would tangibly deliver affordability.
“While I acknowledge that speed is critically important in addressing our housing crisis, I agree with stakeholders who called for greater consultation by the minister and EDQ in relation to their expanded powers under the bill.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill's social and affordable housing provisions, arguing it would improve EDQ's ability to plan diverse housing and fast-track sustainable and affordable places for Queenslanders.
“By implementing the changes in this bill, EDQ will be better placed to fast-track sustainable and affordable places that people can call home.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but criticised the government's decade-long failure to plan and deliver housing. Highlighted concerns about the Ripley Valley PDA and the Scott's Farm compulsory acquisition issue, and cited poor dwelling approval statistics.
“The fact of the matter is that the Queensland housing crisis is a direct result of this third-term state Labor government's almost decade-long failure to plan and deliver new housing and improve housing affordability.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and its focus on delivering 1,300 new dwellings through social and affordable housing, criticised the LNP and Greens for hypocrisy on housing, and highlighted social housing delivered in his electorate.
“If you want more housing, send them to Stafford, because we have delivered homes in Kedron, Alderley, Chermside and Chermside West, and there are more on the way.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but raised concerns about EDQ's conflicting roles as both regulator and developer, the risk of financial returns clouding decisions, and quoted the Housing Institute of Australia describing the bill as 'fundamentally flawed'.
“EDQ will simultaneously have control of approving and policing developments while also acting as a developer itself. This approach can be fraught with conflicts of interest and potential issues about conflicting roles.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and highlighted the need for a mix of housing solutions, including partnerships with community housing groups and private sector. Referenced local housing summits in the Mackay-Isaac-Whitsunday region.
“Every lever needs to be pulled so that we can do this in Queensland, including engaging EDQ and delivering the powers that they need so that we can realise Queensland's housing needs.”— 2024-06-11View Hansard
▸In Detail11 June 2024View Hansard
Replaced section 44 of the Economic Development Act to clarify that development applications, change applications, extension applications and cancellation applications made under the Planning Act before a PDA declaration continue to be assessed under the Planning Act.
Replaced section 45 of the Economic Development Act to clarify that existing Planning Act development approvals continue in effect after a PDA declaration, but only minor change and cancellation applications (not extension applications) may subsequently be made under the Planning Act.
Consequential amendment to section 77 to ensure consistency with the new sections 44 and 45 regarding exemptions for particular development approvals under the Planning Act.
Consequential amendment to clause 39 inserting a cross-reference note to sections 44, 45, 247 and 248 regarding when Planning Act development approvals may or may not be changed after a PDA declaration.
Inserted transitional and validation provisions (sections 246, 247 and 248) to validate extension and cancellation applications made under the Planning Act before and after PDA declarations, and to allow continued consideration of undecided applications.
Assent date: 26 April 2024