Minutes/Policy Development Committee Meeting/2023-01-31

Policy Development Committee Meeting 2023-01-01

Start: 8pm AEDT

Attendees

 * Alex Jago
 * Gold
 * milspec
 * Tyrone D'Lisle (PDC chair)
 * Simon
 * Star_Tube

Topics
(general to-do list for the coming meetings)


 * Fusion PDC update
 * UBI as cash payment rather than NIT
 * School voucher system
 * State-level overrides for density near transit
 * Satellite broadband
 * Brumbies

Fusion PDC update (Tyrone)

 * 3 meetings in now. Developing processes both for how we structure and approve policy
 * Looking at pre-existing branch processes
 * Strong appeal toward Pirate and Science policy process/structure: emphasis on references, anyone can propose and PDC guides, ratified by exec committee and/or general meeting
 * We're new so we don't always agree on things haha
 * Currently looking at surrogacy proposal (Owen M) - want to have some stuff before Mardi Gras
 * Wouldn't be adopted policy by MG, but "we're actively developing policy on it" status
 * Fusion PDC meetings are pretty process based.
 * Plan to have events like the nuclear discussion from last year. Pitch policy, organise 1-2 discussions/debates as events, that then informs policy dev, PDC signs off and advises Exec.
 * Focus on member development of policy - if nothing else, it creates buy-in!
 * Debate process teaches you how to answer critiques on any given policy
 * Is is worth doing independent PDC work?
 * We think so. People are welcome to take stuff straight to Fusion PDC too.
 * Often good to get consensus on stuff within PPAU and then take it further

Density near transit (milspec)

 * Along similar lines as Tyrone's work
 * Housing density in Australia is low: larger footprint, longer travel times, housing affordability
 * Local residents tend to skew old and owner-occupier
 * Proposal: state government override on local council zoning within walking distance of transit hubs


 * Alex notes that the State government doesn't have to do the zoning itself, it just has to require the local governments to plan around that.
 * Tyrone notes that in Qld specifically, the state government says "we have a regional plan for XXXX date, we expect the population in your area to be YYY,000 people, zone accordingly". State govt can also declare a priority development area to take more direct control of a specific growth precinct - this is pretty close to milspec's proposal
 * Could declare "everywhere within 1km of a train station is a PDA"
 * Also need a policy note on infrastructure charges
 * Simon notes on (politically) the need for community consultation - the feeling of things being pushed through leads to anger
 * Alex notes the "builder's remedy" concept as a counterbalance to that going wrong
 * Tyrone: in Japan, what often happens is that a dedicated carpark is built within a block or so of where the buildings are. This incentivises walking.
 * Gold: I've never been comfortable with the concept of "state taking control" - it's authoritarian and centralising and it doesn't necessarily guarantee a better outcome
 * Tyrone: I was very "power to the people, man" a few years ago but also at a local level people can be pretty selfish - NIMBY at best, outright racist at worst. So I think local government control but with state government nudging and in extremis outright control
 * The issue here is fundamentally that future residents don't get a vote
 * Simon points out that restricting density tends to result in higher land tax per resident - if people want to hog land, let 'em pay for the privilege
 * milspec: on authoritarianism, I think zoning rules are fundamentally authoritarian, so I think in many cases reducing density restrictions (however done) is a net reduction in authoritarianism.
 * milspec: if you lived right on a council boundary your neighbouring council could choose to zone giga-highrise next to you today and you wouldn't get a say there
 * Simon proposes "you can build as high as you like but you need your neighbours to agree. How you get them to agree is up to you."
 * have a more-than-2/3rds-but-less-than-100% threshold
 * retain some zoning: can build up to X storeys by-right
 * how far away you need buy-in for is a function of your proposed height and their height
 * milspec: how does this relate to compulsory acquisition? Can we treat this in a similar way?
 * Tyrone: getting people to move out isn't an issue. Getting the redevelopment done is the issue. This is why the state government needs to have the option to get the density done.
 * Also on compensation, upzoning is a windfall in and of itself.
 * Need a note in the policy text that this is in conjunction with land tax reform policy

Circling back: original proposal is pretty much that the State would have control of zoning for areas near transit

~ some discussion ensues which I missed - sorry - AJ ~


 * milspec raises a point about consultation for new stations as creating legitimacy for upzoning around stations, too


 * Simon: I see two issues with leave-it-to-the-locals-first-and-then-the-state-takes-over. First, when the locals are opposed, there's issues with the state government being seen to come in. But also it can be advantageous for councillors to be able to say they're against it. So I think the state government being in charge of consultation might be better.


 * Question of where this would slot into the existing platform
 * Alex asks how in-depth we want to get into housing affordability as a topic
 * Simon notes the Victorian campaign had two points about fast rail to greenfields devs and relaxing restrictions on caravan life
 * Alex raises a point about how we potentially force some people to consume more housing than they otherwise would (or economically can)
 * Gold suggests that some people would prefer to force others into homelessness than give an inch to the slumlords
 * The core argument is that given the imbalance of power in the low-end of the rent market, the default is the lowest legislated standard (or indeed somewhat below that)
 * argument ensued about exactly how low the bar ought to be