LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROAD CLOSURES—1934 ACT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2012.)

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:04): I refer members to my second reading speech of 24 November last year, responding against this bill when it was last introduced. The bill was reintroduced on 31 May this year as a private member's bill by the member for Croydon, and it now appears in government business—yet still as a private member's bill. This would indicate that the member for Croydon still does not have his party's support, despite his lobbying for 23 years. Putting this bill in government business would also indicate that the government has run out of business.

The opening statement from the member for Croydon, on his last attempt at this bill on 10 November 2011, stated, 'The principle for which I have been arguing—'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member will be heard in silence. There is too much noise coming from my right.

Ms SANDERSON: Can we stop the clock every time we break, otherwise I will not have time?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms SANDERSON: The member for Croydon stated:

The principle for which I have been arguing for so many years is that, if a local council seeks to close or impose traffic restrictions on a road leading from its territory into that of a neighbouring council, it should do so with the consent of the neighbouring council.

Whilst there could be merit in this argument for future road closures, the member for Croydon was, and still is, proposing a retrospective change to a road condition that has existed for 25 years. Where is the fairness in that? A principle, as defined, is a fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. This new bill, now finally perfected after 23 years in parliament, has many significant changes.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am. Could you ask the members on the front bench to keep their noise down? Every bit of it comes straight over here.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We will have some quiet. There is a lot of noise coming in and it is projecting very loudly.

Ms SANDERSON: The so-called principle that the member for Croydon has been going on about for so many years is completely removed, and the bill now exclusively applies to Barton Terrace West. Now, that is what you call a vendetta; 23 years of pretending to be protecting a principle, and it boils down to a vendetta against the people of North Adelaide.

If this were such a great idea, so important for traffic flows, improved amenity and road safety, this so-called principle the member has been going on about, this would have been a government bill in 2002 when Labor first came to power, or it would have been passed when the member for Croydon first proposed amendments in 1999. It would not be a private member's bill, as it has been for all attempts in the House of Assembly: it would be a government bill.

When the fact that the member for Croydon did nothing for 10 years was pointed out by the member for Bragg last year, the member for Croydon replied, 'No; two defeated cabinet submissions.' So, does he really even have the support of his own party? Perhaps he has promised to retire if they get him this—maybe it would be worth it.

The member also insinuates that this was not agreed to in 1987 when the road was closed to all except buses. Barton Road was closed in 1987 as part of a major realignment of roads and the creation of the northern ring route around the city in the 1980s. The closure of Barton Road was not, as has been suggested by the member for Croydon, a unilateral decision made by the Adelaide City Council. At the time, these road alignments—including the Barton Road closure—had the support of Hindmarsh and Prospect councils and the highways department.

The consultation by the north-west ring route working party was extensive and included displays of the proposal to close Barton Road (which was Mildred Road at the time). Many residents have chosen to reside in the north-western precinct of North Adelaide since this time, knowing that Barton Road was closed. It is difficult to see what justice will be accorded to them if this road is reopened after 25 years.

I draw the house's attention to the fact that during the member for Croydon's last speech regarding this bill, on 31 May, 10 points of order were called against him, and he was completely vile, rude and an embarrassment to his party, to the parliament and to the people he represents. The member for Croydon accused me of being vindictive, yet he has dedicated his time in parliament to tormenting the people of North Adelaide, creating a false class warfare, wasting taxpayers' money on mail-outs and data entry and parliamentary counsel's time drafting and re-drafting—even seven extra amendments just this morning—and, all the time, speeches in the house.

I refer to the recent article in the paper that put the cost of state parliament at $100,000 a day. Given on average we sit for six hours per day, the member for Croydon having mentioned Barton Terrace West 563 times, having given 26 speeches, wasting upwards of five hours not including speeches in the Legislative Council and not counting the reply speeches that have been made defending his ridiculous attempts at having some relevance in this place, this is another example of the Labor Party's distorted priorities and endless waste of taxpayers' money—a decade of Labor waste.

Is this really how the member for Croydon wants to be remembered when he leaves parliament—as a member who pursued his personal vendetta unsuccessfully for his whole career? Seriously, give up. The member for Croydon tells the house that he has received 4,000 returns so far in favour of reopening and 40 against. This is after letterboxing the seat of Croydon and marginal seat of Colton. He informs us that he will also be letterboxing the seats of Cheltenham and Lee. Clearly, this is campaigning. This is a disgraceful waste of taxpayer money to survey residents who live more than 10 kilometres away from the issue, especially when he has not even surveyed the people most affected yet in Ovingham and North Adelaide.

I have doorknocked the streets of my electorate and surveyed those who would be directly affected by the reopening of the road, including those in Ovingham and North Adelaide. We doorknocked more than 600 homes. Of the residents who responded, 79 per cent would like Barton Terrace West to remain open only to buses as it is now. I also note that Hawker Street was changed to a 40 km/h zone in order to restrict traffic. This bill will only increase traffic onto Hawker Street and will cause more issues with the train crossing that is blocked by freight trains several times a day for up to 15 minutes. This will cause gridlock as Hawker Street cannot take any more traffic unless there is a rail overpass.

According to the 1999 report commissioned by the Adelaide City Council, the findings of consultants Murray F. Young & Associates were almost singularly negative about the impacts and potential reopening of this link. The report estimates—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms SANDERSON: —an expense of $1 million to be borne by the Adelaide City Council just to re-engineer the one intersection 13 years ago. Now this figure would be substantially more. Last year a PhD candidate at the University of South Australia did a traffic simulation of the reopening of Barton Road from 8am until 9am on a weekday, and it showed considerable congestion along Barton Terrace West and the need to re-engineer several intersections. This would be at considerable cost and have flow-on effects to many other streets. This is another example of Labor's willingness to spend taxpayers' money—or, in this instance, ratepayers' money—on their own follies. We will soon be at the levels of debt we had during the State Bank disaster, and the member for Croydon thinks this would be a good use of money.

In 2002, traffic surveys undertaken in North Adelaide demonstrated that the control has proven effective in increasing the levels of road safety and residential amenity to North Adelaide streets. In 1986, before the road's closure, there were 51 vehicle accidents in Barton Terrace, with 11 people injured, several requiring hospital admission. In 2009, only one accident was recorded with no injury. Hill Street went from seven accidents in 1986 to one in 2009. Mills Terrace went from nine accidents in 1986 to one in 2009. With such vulnerable populations—elderly residents at Helping Hand Aged Care centre, children at St Dominic's, the patients and visitors to Calvary Hospital and Mary Potter Hospice, and the families accessing the aquatic centre along Barton Terrace West—the potential for tragedy is very real with such an increase in traffic.

Despite a campaign, or obsession, of more than 20 years, the member for Croydon has no supporting evidence—no traffic surveys, no mention of accident statistics, no traffic simulations or movement strategies, no costings—and now even the so-called principle he has been fighting for all this time has been completely removed from the bill, including seven extra omissions and amendments this morning. Clearly, this has all been about Barton Terrace West the whole time and a longstanding vendetta against the residents of North Adelaide.

It astounds me that the member for Croydon is willing to waste the parliament's time and waste thousands of taxpayers' dollars pursuing legislation to open a council road that was closed to return a residential street to the amenity it deserves—all for his own self-interest and obsession.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:15): I wish first to place on the record my appreciation, as a member of this house, for the excellent contribution from the member for Adelaide on this piece of legislation. The member for Croydon has, throughout his time in the parliament, been obsessed about a number of things but this would have to be at the top of the list, without a doubt. It is his most unsuccessful to date, I would have to say, but what is concerning is that we now come to the twilight of the debate on this piece of legislation at a time when, remarkably, we are near the end of the parliamentary sitting for this session and miraculously, this piece of private members' legislation appears in government business time.

There is no correspondence or advice as to why it has now been elevated to this status in some way. It gives an indication initially of one thing; that is, perhaps the government themselves were going to adopt this bill as their own. The alternative is that the government has decided that it is going to throw its weight behind this bill and, if that is the case, it does raise a number of questions about where it has been in the last 10 years but, more particularly, what this bill is really about, and what it has developed to as a result of some rather embarrassing situations that the government now faces.

I would like to suggest that there are a number of options here. I will say at the outset that the government's time, which is now allocated to deal with this matter, did prompt my office to request a briefing from the department of transport on this matter. That was wholly rejected on the grounds that this was not a government bill and therefore they were not obliged in any way to provide any information. Isn't that interesting? Nevertheless, we press on with it as a private member's bill in government time.

I would just like to put this piece of information to the parliament: no piece of traffic data or information from any transport expert, including anyone from the department of transport, has been presented in support of the effect of this legislation—to open up to all forms of traffic this part of Barton Terrace. Not one scintilla of professional information, and the reason that that is so important is that at the time of the closure, some 25 years ago, there had been the development, and subsequent implementation, of a very major piece of infrastructure along the western corridor of North Adelaide which I think has been an impressive piece of infrastructure and which has given extraordinary greater access to the people from the west going east and from the east going west.

That has all happened and of course the member, in this instance, wants to simply rip out his little cherrypicked piece of obsession to deal with it, completely ignorant of how that might impact on other traffic movement and activity surrounding it. That is the first thing: this is presented to us in complete isolation from any expertise that this is something that is both meritorious or even achievable in a traffic management sense.

The other aspect is this, and this is a new thing. The new event is that the government now owns the Clipsal site. The government has announced that it is going to develop this piece of property as a very significant housing development with lots of other design aspects of place, and the government has spent I think through the LMC about $10 million in promoting this piece of development. I do not think anything has actually been sold yet but, nevertheless, there have been all sorts of glossy magazines and special parties and champagne openings and all these sorts of things to develop it.

There are two things the government needs to do. One, is to make it attractive enough for people to invest in and ultimately buy dwellings there; and second, is to ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure and transport around it. One thing the government recently announced is its support, or contribution, to a $400 million grade separation of rail infrastructure, both at Goodwood and Torrens. The Torrens interchange is immediately adjacent to the Bowden development, the old Clipsal site. That is to include the undergrounding through that site of a significant portion of one of the rail corridors.

This is a major piece of infrastructure for the taxpayers of South Australia, and, in fact, for Australia (because the commonwealth is paying the other half), which will enhance the opportunities the government will have to develop, sell and make any profit out of that site. I think that is a concerning aspect in itself. I have no personal objection to the grade separation, the justifications, the freight benefits, and the like, of a grade separation at the Goodwood and Torrens interchanges. What concerns me is that the government should prioritise that with the clear objective, I suggest, of supporting its development.

The second aspect of that project is how the government proposed to get traffic around that precinct (the whole of the area) during the grade separation exercise—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Croydon will have a chance to respond.

Ms CHAPMAN: —because that is obviously going to be a significant—

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order. I am quite fascinated by what the member for Bragg is saying but I am now having a bit of trouble relating it back to Barton Terrace.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is it. It is right next to it.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes, I know, but you—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: I am not sure, but I think you have strayed a little bit.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I perhaps make it absolutely clear for the member. I appreciate that it is not her electorate. Next to Port Road is what is the second part of the Goodwood/Torrens grade separation project. It is a $400 million exercise. It is in this year's state budget. The Torrens interchange is right next to the Torrens, next to Park Terrace, which is the apex point, I suppose, on Port Road and adjacent to the Clipsal site. The Barton Terrace we are talking about is just up the road. The whole of that infrastructure has been remodelled in the last few years. The next new piece of infrastructure the government has announced in this year's budget as its very high priority is the Goodwood/Torrens grade separation of the two rail lines that run across them.

I think I now have the member's understanding of the precinct. It is my contention, in the absence of any data from the member for Croydon, that the only benefit in the government coming to the party on this now (suddenly) is that it wants to develop that precinct and it knows that the one way it can deal with the development, including taking the rail line under Park Terrace, is to open up other access roads. That would be the only benefit to the government in doing this.

The second aspect is this: because it seems that the government has been pretty slow so far in being able to get some interest in the Bowden development, you might have noticed in the budget bill just recently that it cherrypicked a bit across to enable it to have the stamp duty exemption which the City of Adelaide people enjoy, along with a Western Australian developer on a Hackney site. The Bowden site has now been added in. What else could it do other than try to develop the opportunities at that site to say, 'You'll be able to have access through this road. You'll be able to go and have coffee on O'Connell Street,' whatever.

That type of self-interest by the government to scramble across and support the member for Croydon (20 years later) is almost laughable. The total self-interest of this government in now scrambling around and coming behind the member for Croydon is absolutely laughable. I am very interested to hear the Minister for Transport Services present in this debate because I am very much looking forward to hearing what the department of transport has advised on this matter. I am very interested to hear what the department has advised the Minister for Transport Services as to the merits of the proposal endorsed in the bill.

I will just mention one other thing. We have been presented with some amendments, which I can deal with in due course. This issue has been around for 20 years. I cannot understand why we should have to have these on the day of the debate. That is just lazy.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:25): I also rise to make a few comments on this matter. I find it quite bizarre that after some two decades—and the former senior lawmaker in this state, who was a very senior member of cabinet, tried to introduce this nonsense before and got rolled—we are here debating a private member's bill on such a ridiculous issue.

The member for Bragg has stolen some of my thunder. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if the government is going to support this bill, it is all about the disastrous development of Bowden, the Clipsal site, and the government sees the member for Croydon's bill on Barton Road as a means of propping up this development. We went through the development in the Public Works Committee, and I think, sir, you may well have been the chair at the time; I cannot recall. Why we are sitting here debating this issue defies comprehension, and I think the member for Adelaide very adequately put the case against this.

If indeed the government is supporting the member for Croydon in this debate and the bill gets pushed through this house, there will be a fine old tussle in the upper house when it gets there, if and when it does. I can see that there will be fun and games there, big time. Of course, the poor old member for Croydon will not be able to make a contribution. I am not sure how many allies he has there, but I can see that the various minor parties and Independents in that place will have a lot of fun and games with this bill, if it gets there.

I really see little point in wasting our time on this matter. It has worked for over two decades, whether the member for Croydon agrees with it or not. There seems to be some sort of obnoxious class warfare, which I do not find necessary at all. I just find it disappointing. To be perfectly honest, I do not go through that area very often so it does not make a lot of difference to me, but this is something that seems to have worked.

The member for Adelaide has well and truly covered the reasons why this bill should not succeed; however, I will repeat: the Bowden development has obviously gone pear shaped big time, as the member for Bragg indicated. The fact that you cannot get a briefing from the department of transport when the government is obviously going to support this bill leaves one shaking their head. I oppose the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:29): When I first came into this place back in 1997, I recall that the house sat in December of that year and then resumed on 17 February 1998, from memory. I think it was the day the then premier Olsen announced that the government intended to sell ETSA. It was probably very shortly after that date, probably some time in February or March, at the latest, of 1998, that the member for Croydon first raised the issue of Barton Terrace.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, I raised it before then.

Mr WILLIAMS: It was the first I was aware he had raised it. I have been here for almost 15 years, and the member for Croydon, particularly when he was on the opposition benches, raised this matter on an incredibly regular basis. He spoke of little else, to be quite honest, in those days. I remember him making the statement that it would be the very first thing that a Labor government would do upon coming to power. That, again from memory, was in March 2002, over 10 years ago. Not only that, but the member for Croydon at some stage was a relatively senior member of the cabinet, and the very first thing they were going to do on coming to power seemed to have slipped his memory.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: They had it ready for me on the first day.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am sure they did. But also ready for the member for Croydon were his colleagues—they were ready for him as well. Through all the years he sat at the senior end of the cabinet table his colleges refused to entertain this nonsense, because that is what it is. It is not about orderly planning, orderly development or orderly transport. It is not about the orderly movement of people in and about our city. This is about a piece of nonsense in the mind of the member for Croydon.

Ms Bedford: Not true.

Mr WILLIAMS: 'Not true,' says one of his colleagues. I look forward to his colleagues on that side taking their place at the microphone when I have finished my remarks to explain why it is not true, why what was going to be the 'first action' of a Labor government was never taken, notwithstanding that the member who made those statements was a senior member of cabinet for many, many years, and I repeat: it is because it is a piece of nonsense. It was good to get a headline and get a bit of media when the member was in opposition, but all his colleges knew that it was a nonsense and that is the way they treated it.

What has fascinated me is why the government is entertaining the member for Croydon by allowing him to bring this on in government time today. That has me a little intrigued. I am sure it is not because the government has reassessed the matter and decided that this is now all of a sudden important and will enhance the movement of traffic in and around our city. I am sure it is not going to solve the problem with their bus timetables: in fact, this will do the opposite. One of the biggest transport problems we have in this city at the moment is getting the buses to run on time.

Ms Chapman: Is the minister.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will be nice. The buses in fact do have access through this particular piece of road and, by opening it up to the rest of the traffic, I know what it will do to the buses. Here in Grenfell Street and Currie Street—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Have you ever been on that bus, Mitch? What number is it?

Mr WILLIAMS: I have not broken the law. I have not driven through there.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: On the bus.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I haven't been on the bus, but I have observed it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What number is it?

Mr WILLIAMS: I don't know what number it is. The government solution here in the city to try to get the buses to run on time is to exclude motor cars from parts of the thoroughfare in Grenfell Street and Currie Street; exclude motor cars to give buses absolute right of way on their own without any cars interfering to slow them down. The member for Croydon wants to do the very opposite at Barton Terrace. It is a nonsense.

One of the things I want to talk about on this is the member for Croydon's contribution when he introduced this bill. This is a matter about which I wrote to the Speaker, because it concerned me greatly. I want to quote from what the member for Croydon said in one part:

So, the member for Adelaide must have known that her claim was false when she made it or was recklessly indifferent to whether it was true or false at the time she made it...

He goes on, but that was the relevant part. I wrote to the Speaker some time ago concerning that, because I thought the member for Croydon had been here long enough to understand that that sort of accusation, that somebody had knowingly misled the house, should only be made by a substantive motion. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I took exception to the member for Croydon making that statement.

I thought he was well outside of the standing orders, and I had a significant discussion with the Speaker and the Clerk over that matter. I for one do not believe that his tacking on the back of his accusation 'or was recklessly indifferent to whether it was true or false at the time' exonerates the member at all. I think it is a very serious accusation that the member for Croydon raised in his contribution.

I think that, again, that illustrates more about the member for Croydon than anybody else in this place. The member for Croydon is on a frolic here and his frolic includes, in my opinion, abusing the rights that he has in this house. I also remind the house and come back to the point I was making that, in all those years in government, the member for Croydon was unable to bring this matter before the parliament because his colleagues would not let him.

One other thing that I think we should not lose sight of is that, for most of the time he was a senior minister in the government, the seat of Adelaide was held by the Labor Party. Is it not interesting that, when the government holds the seat of Adelaide, it will not do certain things, and one of them is to entertain the member for Croydon over this little piece of nonsense? It would not entertain the member for Croydon whilst it held the seat because—

Ms Bedford: He never gave up, let me tell you.

Mr WILLIAMS: No, he did not give up but, whilst you held the seat of Adelaide, you never entertained the member for Croydon. The good people of the seat of Adelaide will know. If this matter goes through the parliament and the road is reopened to traffic, I am sure it will cause chaos there between North Adelaide and Brompton with the steady flow of traffic on the ring route that has been created around there, because the traffic flows in that part of the city have changed dramatically from when the member first proposed this.

If it is reopened, there will be chaos down there as you cross from the Parklands into I think it is Hawker Street, Brompton, at the traffic lights there. It is bad enough getting across there now. It will cause chaos and the people of that part of the city and the communities affected will be told why this occurred. It occurred because the government lost the seat of Adelaide and the government decided that they would entertain a mere frolic on behalf of the member to Croydon—a frolic which has got nothing to do with good policy or good traffic management. It is a piece of nonsense, and I think the house should treat it as such.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 6 for the ayes.

Second reading thus passed.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: Could the member advise whether he has received, or sought, any advice from the department of transport on this bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: From time to time I have had discussions with the department of transport, both when I was a minister and afterwards, but the department of transport is neutral about the matter. It concerns local roads.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the discussions that you had with the department of transport, did they prepare any material in respect of the cost of implementing the terms of this bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The cost will be borne by the Adelaide City Council.

Ms CHAPMAN: Were there any assessments undertaken of that cost, even if it is to be borne by the Adelaide City Council?

The CHAIR: The member for Croydon is indicating no.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have no recollection of what that cost was.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the course of these discussions, did the member ascertain from the department of transport what other work would need to be undertaken, and at what cost, in respect of traffic movement along the western boundary of Barton Terrace, in the corridor between the seats of Croydon and Adelaide?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do not think there would be any consequences at all for the ring route. This is off the ring route. My original plan was to maintain the current road infrastructure and to have alternate one-way movement. The Adelaide City Council objected to the cost of traffic lights to regulate that movement, so the current bill requires the city council to reconfigure the roads at that point to allow two-way movement, which should not be very hard because it was that way for decades.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has the member had any discussions with the Adelaide City Council in respect of their attitude to the bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Adelaide City Council has always been entirely rejectionist of this bill. There are no grounds for discussion; they have not sought discussions that I am aware of. Moreover, the Adelaide City Council has defied the Supreme Court, which found that it acted entirely unlawfully in installing the configuration that is currently there in a case brought by police against Gordon Howie in 1990. The Adelaide City Council then applied under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act to close the road permanently. That is the act which should be used to open or close roads in South Australia.

The Adelaide City Council was refused permission under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act on the recommendation of the Surveyor-General. That left the Barton Road restriction without any lawful basis whatsoever, and that is when the Adelaide City Council resorted to using the temporary closure provisions of the Local Government Act, the same provision which is used to close King William Street for the Christmas Pageant and which will be used to close Elizabeth Street Croydon for the South Australian Living Arts Festival launch between 5pm and 10pm on 1 August.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has the member consulted any further with the Charles Sturt council in respect of the proposed bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: As members of the opposition are wont to tell the media and the house, I am in constant conference with members of the Charles Sturt council. My understanding is that, if the matter were put to a vote, the proposition for reopening Barton Road would be carried by a considerable majority of the Charles Sturt council. It is true that in the first year of the council a resolution was put by councillor Agius of Beverley ward to reopen Barton Road, and that was defeated, but it was defeated on procedural and not substantive grounds.

Ms SANDERSON: I believe that it was defeated by the Charles Sturt council on the basis that there had been no traffic surveys, road simulations, or any movement strategy at all. I am wondering if the member for Croydon has done these now.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I will attempt to rely on the Adelaide City Council's Murray F. Young & Associates report of 1999 (I think) in which they found that if Barton Road were reopened on alternate one-way movement there would be an extra 2,500 vehicles per day on Hill Street.

Ms SANDERSON: Do you acknowledge that that was before the Clipsal development, which is expected to have thousands of people, so the effect would be considerably different, and that is why the council voted against it? It would be wiser to wait until the Bowden Urban Village is up and running and do actual traffic surveys and accident studies and then consider whether this is correct.

The CHAIR: The member for Adelaide, that is not a question. If you are going to ask questions, please ask a question.

Ms Chapman: Wouldn't it be better to wait, she said.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, wouldn't it be better to wait? Wouldn't it be—

The CHAIR: No; I heard what she said, but the question had a lot of other material which has nothing to do with the question. Member for Croydon, do you wish to answer?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Sure. The 3,000 people who will ultimately live in the Bowden Urban Village are very keen to enjoy coffee at the premises on O'Connell Street, North Adelaide. No doubt some of them will be keen to get to St Laurence's Church, to the Helping Hand to visit elderly relatives, to Calvary Hospital if they are giving birth or visiting a spouse who is giving birth, and the doctor and dentist surgeries in that part of North Adelaide. Indeed, I am sure people in Bowden Urban Village will have girls attending St Dominic's Priory School, an outstanding school in the area which supports the reopening of Barton Road.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's the three questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: We can go to the next clause if you like; I do not mind. We have eight clauses or so.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Do this one.

The CHAIR: I will allow one more, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Calvary Hospital and Mary Potter Hospice is in the North Adelaide precinct relatively adjacent to Barton Terrace—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not really.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, a little further south but on the main road that would support the receiving of traffic if Barton Terrace was reopened. Accordingly, has there been any consultation and, if so, what is the response?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: People associated with the Calvary Hospital have always been supportive of reopening the road. They resisted its closure in the first place. In particular, Dr Chitti has led the campaign for the medical profession for the reopening of the road on the basis of easy and swift access to Calvary Hospital.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was not my question.

The CHAIR: I did not hear your question.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question was: will the member tell us if he has actually consulted with the owners of the hospital in respect of this legislation; not whether there is somebody that has been vocal from the hospital community. Have they seen the bill? Have you discussed it with them at all? Have you identified whether there are going to be any traffic management issues with the significantly-developed Mary Potter Hospice facility adjacent to the hospital and whether there is going to be any impact on that facility?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Bragg is really hoist on her own petard now, because Calvary Hospital and Mary Potter Hospice have in the past been favourable to reopening the road. They do not need to consult on this particular bill because it is not so technical in its nature that it needs further consultation. People associated with those institutions support the reopening of the road for easier and swift access of their clients to their institutions.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 2, lines 6 and 7—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute 'This Act will come into operation on 1 July 2013.'

I have consulted the Local Government Association extensively on this. Although it may be that section 359 of the Local Government Act will ultimately be repealed by agreement between the government and the Local Government Association, that agreement has not yet been reached, so I have deleted that feature of the bill by these amendments. All the other amendments are consequential on that matter.

Amendment carried.

The CHAIR: Do the rest of the amendments all deal with section 359?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: They all deal with the same thing.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have one question in relation to that. The member has indicated that he has consulted with the LGA about this, and I assume all of these amendments are as a result of their advice to you of what is necessary to—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: —comply with the intention in respect of the application of section 359. Have you consulted with the LGA on the whole of the bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Apart from the LGA, have you consulted with any other stakeholder? Apart from your petition, which you have claimed has X number of signatures—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Including a whole lot from Ovingham.

Ms CHAPMAN: We will come to that another time; perhaps in the rebuttal that goes out for that. In respect of the actual stakeholders—the councils themselves—you have told us that you have not consulted the Adelaide City Council because they are 'wilfully disobedient' and you are not going to tolerate anything they do; that is pretty clear. You have not consulted the other council because you think they are just going to fall into line anyway and there is going to be a majority of support.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I have communicated with them. We have had an exchange of correspondence with Mr Withers, the chief executive, who thinks that he was misrepresented in the opposition's account of his letter.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]