It seems like Noosa may have dodged a bullet as far as high-rise developments go. Queensland Labor appeared to be committed to ploughing ahead with their State Facilitated Developments (SFD) for Noosa, one in Tewantin and the other in Noosa Junction. But with a change in government, a glimmer of hope has turned into a brighter ray of expectation.

Let’s begin the analysis with a little reminder. When the SFD legislation, within the HAAPOLA Bill, sailed through parliament in April, it did so with the support of the LNP. Our local independent state member, Sandy Bolton, saw the looming danger for Noosa and opposed the legislation in a speech to parliament. 

In the leadup to the state election, it was impressed upon the LNP and their Noosa candidate Clare Stewart that they could take a different position to Qld Labor and promise that any SFD developments in the Noosa shire would not breach the local planning scheme. 

On October 7th, the LNP issued a media release headed “LNP pledges to stop Noosa Development”. That document claimed that the LNP, “will put the brakes on Labor’s approval of a 195-unit, six storey development”. Furthermore, “The LNP has met with Noosa Council and provided certainty that an LNP Government will ensure that any developments are compliant within the local planning scheme”.

The alliance of community groups which gathered forces to fight the SFD developments, of which I am a part, welcomed the commitment by the LNP, as did the council. Interestingly, as soon as the LNP made their promise, Labor’s Housing Minister sent a statement to local media which declared: “The LNP voted for these laws and now they’re backtracking. What they are promising is already part of the process – the next stage involves further consultation with both council and the community as well as assessment against the planning scheme.”

Hang on, I hear you ask, Labor was going to assess the SFDs against the Noosa Plan? When both Mayor Wilkie and Sandy Bolton MP visited Minister Scanlon just weeks beforehand, there was no such promise, let alone a suggestion, that the Noosa SFDs would be assessed against the local planning scheme. Suddenly, the Minister appeared to be doing her own version of backtracking.

But, of course, Labor is no longer in a position to make such decisions, so the big question now is whether the LNP will honour their commitment to Noosa. In other words, was their promise outlined on October 7th conditional on their Noosa candidate being elected?

To parse the LNP’s media release, the statements committing the party to both stopping the SFD process and to having the developments assessed against the planning scheme are stand-alone statements that seemingly have no contingencies attached. A wriggle-room statement comes at the end of the media release, where then Shadow Deputy Leader Jarrod Bleijie was quoted as saying, “The only way to stop this development process is to vote for Clare Stewart and the LNP.” This was the same line being parroted by volunteers handing out how-to-vote slips at the election booths. Was it just election rhetoric, or could there be a more sinister, retributive subtext in the messaging?

It will now be up to the LNP to demonstrate that their commitment to Noosa was genuine: that they will “put the brakes on” the SFD process, and “ensure the community and council are consulted” as well as “ensure that any developments are compliant within the local planning scheme.” That’s what their media release promised.

If the LNP welch on the deal, then the campaign opposing the SFDs will again ramp up. I am certain that our local state member, Sandy Bolton, will be at the forefront of that fight. She had already promised to organise buses to carry residents to George Street to demonstrate Noosa’s displeasure on the SFDs.

A further question remains about the LNP’s ongoing approach to the legislation that they originally supported. Will there be more rounds of SFD developments under this new government, or will they ditch the process altogether? From their pre-election policy statements, we know the LNP intend to: “work directly with Councils to streamline housing approvals”; deliver 53,500 social and community homes by 2044; build 10,000 community houses on church and charity-owned land; invest $2 billion into a Housing Investment Fund; and develop a new Regional Plan. What we don’t know is what they will do with the HAAPOLA legislation (amusingly pilloried as the HOOPLA legislation).

It’s important to note that both Noosa Council and those of us opposing the SFD process universally appreciate that Noosa Shire desperately needs more housing options, especially rental properties for key workers. Part of the reason for that shortage of affordable housing is the proliferation of Airbnb-type short-stay properties which have taken housing stock out of the permanent rental market. There is also the disjunct between the annual growth in land value being twice the growth in real wages throughout this century. Add to that rising interest rates, increasing wealth inequality plus negative gearing tax breaks, and you have a perfect storm impacting on the housing market. But there are also systemic failures over many decades by both federal and state governments. It was those levels of government that were historically charged with responsibility for the supply of social housing. 

From any angle, the current housing “crisis” is the product of a multitude of factors, and reductionist solutions like the SFD legislation are just band-aid relief for deep lesions. One of the big moral problems with the SFD process was the use of taxpayer money and resources to assist private developers. 

Meanwhile, efforts are currently underway to assist Noosa Council in delivering affordable housing by utilising council-owned land. But it remains absurd that local government is now expected to provide solutions for the failings of higher levels of government.

So, let’s just unpick that power hierarchy, as many people don’t understand how it operates. It’s important to appreciate that, HAAPOLA Bill or not, the state has always had call-in powers over local developments. Indeed, state governments are the head of power over local governments. Local planning schemes can only activate if they are first signed off by the state. Local government per se only exists as a result of state legislation. As a level of government, local government is not mandated in our nation’s constitution. 

Any autonomy which local government enjoys is a product of both the good will and the democratic values of state politicians. We will now see whether the new LNP government will actively respect the level of government that is purportedly “closest to the people”.