Thursday, 6 February 2025

Land use activity agreements

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (18:01): (1398) My adjournment is to the Premier. The action I seek is for the state government to address the lack of transparency surrounding land use activity agreements, known as LUAA, in Victoria. All Victorians deserve to know the detail behind these agreements – the conditions, the charges and where the money is going. I looked into this issue after a small residential housing development in White Hills came to a standstill when the developer, partway through a project was informed by the City of Greater Bendigo that a LUAA applied to his development, and he refused to accept the conditions imposed. When a LUAA applies, the payment of community benefits to the traditional owner group is required. A short extension of a road triggered the agreement with the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, and he was informed that costs based on a percentage of the land value would be applied in accordance with their valuation.

The issue led me to speak with people from various councils and land developments. I soon discovered this was not an isolated incident. Under the Labor government, and following a High Court decision known as Timber Creek, the formula applied and costs imposed under LUAA agreements have morphed considerably in recent years. I understand that the land justice unit in the Department of Premier and Cabinet audit local councils for compliance with the recognition and settlement agreements and land use activity agreements. But for those asked to comply with these agreements, there is no transparency, no reporting of these issues or a right to appeal, no timeframes imposed and no opportunity to question the land valuations imposed by those charging the fee. It appears that conditions are set and costs imposed without question. Across central Victoria LUAA agreements are holding up housing and public projects, in some cases for two to three years, and adding tens of thousands of dollars to projects.

The Timber Creek High Court decision in the Northern Territory has been used to replace the current formula in the agreement, and some developments have been asked to pay 50 per cent of the land value plus another 10 per cent for cultural loss, so it is effectively 60 per cent of the land value. Both local councils and developers are hamstrung until an agreement is reached. Local councils have no power to change the process or ask questions unless they go before VCAT and risk further delays to the project trying to challenge a state government agreement. In addition to the fees applied to projects, other conditions can apply, such as a requirement to rename a creek or road, pay for additional staff to attend the project site and observe the works and for staff to undertake cultural training. At the end of the day, it does not matter who is funding these projects – all Victorians are paying the price.