So Bryan, who are the PAL winners?

Are we still living in a democracy. Does our Constitution still protect landholders with a fee-simple title?

I certainly hope so.

And yet the further I delve into the beginnings of this double edged PAL Policy, the more it is takes on the appearance of a deliberate act, to satisfy the needs of a few.

Does this mean about 30.000 title holders who have been so badly disadvantaged are just “collateral damage” and given no consideration other than bad luck!

Where are you Bryan Green?

A report in the press (Thursday, June 17, 2010) revealed a couple (the Bridges) living “in limbo, living from day to day in no-man’s land”.

The report said the council claimed that while the home was structurally sound and met building regulations (as a registered building surveyor had told the Bridges when they bought the property) — under the State Government’s sweeping Prime Agricultural Land (PAL) Act it was prohibited to build a new home on small fertile farm blocks.

Three years later, and after numerous lost appeals and court cases which found the council’s position on PAL to be legally legitimate, the Bridges faced eviction.

The council records apparently show that a permit was not issued for the construction of the house, built years before. The Bridges are the third or fourth owners, and have always paid the full rates applicable for land and the improvements thereon.

Mr Bridge says he can’t understand why the council, which has the ability to issue a retrospective permit for the cottage, appears to be so fearful of the PAL. Act or determined to enforce its minutiae.

So Bryan, following this press report, you said in Parliament and on radio that an “amnesty” would be put in place to enable home owners to establish that all the correct documentation, including permits, were in place with their local council.

In answer to a written enquiry, from another member of the lower house, which involved another couple having a PAL problem, your written reply was – “You can be assured that I remain committed to the announcement I made in Parliament last year regarding the possibility of legislation for an “amnesty” in relation to existing “illegal” buildings.

Hopefully this would resolve the Bridges dilemma,a totally illogical situation, which to any reasonable thinking person, should never have been allowed to happen.

For those who have devised this particular scheme, perhaps Bridges and all the other disadvantaged landholders are just “collateral damage”.

So what’s next Bryan?

Perhaps you might like to explain to how this undemocratic action was able to take place, when you as a Parliamentarian have been entrusted with the responsibility of looking after your constituency.

In fact we can go back into Hansard 2000 and look at the disquiet expressed at that time, by people such as Mr Wilkinson, (Nelson) Mr Fletcher (Murchison) and Mr Wing (Paterson).

Mr Wilkinson: … “Whether the honourable Leader can confirm that the landholder would be able to or has the ability to erect homes on category 3 land, part of it may be category 4 and that was one of the concerns”.

Mr Fletcher: “I am well aware that when Parliament approved the initial policy we were advised that it had general acceptance, only to return to our various communities and find there was an enormous outcry about the injustices of that particular policy leading to sufficient action to convince the Government of the day to rescind the policy and introduce an interim policy.”

Mr Wing quoted from a letter which he had read to the members which says in a concluding para. “If Governments take action to take somebody’s property for a road or other public purposes they are required to pay compensation.

If they want to introduce a policy which impacts financially very severely and adversely on property owners, then there should be some provision for compensation otherwise there should be some other means of dealing with the perceived problem”.

Mr Wing then says “I do not understand how it can be suggested that intensive tree farming and plantation forestry could possibly be seen as a policy to protect agricultural land, to smother and have the unrestricted right to smother prime agricultural land with a tree plantation. Locking it up for that purpose fourteen to thirty years or so is hardly protecting agricultural land so the title of this policy needs to be changed or the content of the policy, one or the other”.

A sworn valuation shows that one piece of land dropped in value, after rezoning, from $100,000 to $27,000.

The owners are still paying council rates at the council value prior to rezoning.

As are each of the landowners contacted during my research.

So Bryan, as the minister responsible for planning, what do you think should happen to redress the problems facing fee-simple titleholders right across our State, and who do you think are the winners following the implementation of PAL?