Motions

Gawler Traffic Management

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:32): It is from the sensational to the more mundane, Mr Speaker. I move:

That this house recognises the urgent need to implement traffic management solutions for Gawler to—

(a) provide local residents with quality infrastructure to reduce congestion;

(b) create a safer environment for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; and

(c) meet the rapid growth needs of the local Gawler area.

Gawler may not be in my electorate, but it is very much a window to my electorate. In fact, Gawler has become somewhat of a roadblock for those seeking to access the southern Barossa, and subsequently it is a huge issue for me. On behalf of the residents of the southern Barossa, I urge for these issues to be fixed so that people are ably more easily to visit towns around Williamstown, Lyndoch and Rowland Flat.

Traffic in Gawler has been an issue for some time. I think anybody who has had to travel down Adelaide Road, through to Murray Street and into Gawler has seen what a disaster it is. It is impacting upon the development and advancement of the town and, in fact, has to be seen as an example of poor planning over a long period of time that has led to this disastrous situation.

Gawler has had new housing developments on almost every single side, from Hewett to Gawler East and the proposed Concordia development, through to the south, with Evanston Gardens and Orleana Waters. There have been issues with growth in housing in Gawler for a long period of time, so this idea that Murray Street and Adelaide Road were not going to be able to cope should have been foreseen by governments over a longer period of time.

This has to be an example of poor planning, and it is something that even the member for Light has admitted in speeches in this place, when he said previously that issues around traffic management in Gawler and the decisions that have been taken by previous ministers in relation to housing development and road infrastructure development have been sub par.

I bring this issue to this place because, for the residents of Gawler, for the residents of the southern Barossa and for every tourist who visits our beautiful region, this is an issue that must be fixed. I think that the biggest way to improve traffic management situations in Gawler would be to fund properly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I could ask members conducting conversations to do so outside the chamber. Could all members who wish to discuss anything leave the chamber.

Mr KNOLL: —and to provide the most optimal route so that those who are merely travelling through Gawler can get around the town safely whilst freeing up that road infrastructure for those who want to use the local services and the local amenities. There is a significant solution on the table at the moment, that is, the Gawler East link road, which I have heard called by many names, but I think Gawler East link road is the name we are finally settling on. The way that the name of that road is framed potentially underlines what I think is one of the central conflicts in this issue as a traffic management solution.

The Gawler East link road was slated as needing to be built, and it was a condition as part of the Gawler East development that we signed many years ago. The idea was that once the 1,000-home limit of the 3,000 houses slated to be built had been reached, the road had to be in place at that time for further approvals to be sought for homes to be built beyond that first 1,000. The most frustrating thing—again, I think the member for Light would agree with this—is that a decision on how, what, why and how much and who was going to pay for what was not completed at the time that the original approvals were given.

That has led us now to a situation where we are hurtling towards this 1,000-home limit and we still do not have a solution that works. As part of last year's budget, the government put $55 million on the table to build a road, but in my view they are building the wrong road. Instead of a route that would take all through traffic out of Gawler, and instead of providing a connection to the Tiver Road intersection, which the government has spent $13.6 million on, we have an inferior route, where essentially residents of Gawler East and the southern Barossa would be able to get around Murray Street but then, via the Potts Road-Adelaide Road intersection, be dumped into the southern end of Gawler. All we are merely doing in that instance is moving the blockage from Murray Street to Potts Road-Adelaide Road.

That DPTI alignment, as we are calling it, the Potts Road option, was presented to council. Council in their wisdom, in my view, decided that they did not want to merely accept this inferior option. They have gone on to explore two more options in the Eastern Alignment and the Eckerman Alignment, but they have now also presented what I think is perhaps the best option, that is, the Eastern Alignment alternative. The rationale behind both those alignments—and I will not go into the minutiae of the slight variations in alignment—is to preserve a future link to Bentley Road and to Tiver Road. I think that is extremely important because whilst everyone can see that we are not going to get the road that we really need, what we should be doing is making sure that in the future we get the road that we really need.

The Eastern Alignment alternative was put to a council meeting about six weeks ago. I went along hoping for there to be a decision, but unfortunately council did not come to a decision. They agreed to defer and seek more consultation, and they put the DPTI alignment back into the mix. I know that that consultation has now finished and that they are very quickly moving towards a final solution.

I want to put on the record in this house, and I have written to the Gawler council to say: please—from the residents of the southern Barossa, from every tourist who visits our region, from everybody in the Gawler East area, and from everybody who will live in the Concordia area in the future—preserve the Tiver Road option for the future.

You can ask why the government is not taking the superior option now. The truth is that it is because they do not want to own the bridge. By calling it a link road, by making it a local road instead of making it a proper bypass or thoroughfare, by definition, it is a road that needs to be owned by the council. This bridge is an expensive piece of infrastructure that is going to burden the Gawler council for generations to come. It will be okay for the next 20 years, but after that, when the bridge starts to need significant redevelopment, it will be a huge draw on council funds.

The council, again in its wisdom, realising this is something that needs to be solved, has agreed to go along with this, and I think it is to be commended for this. However, it really is a shame that the government has been short-sighted in this area. Instead of giving the people of Gawler a road that they have needed for a long time and one that they deserve, the government is giving them an inferior option.

The real issue that the Gawler council has in choosing the Eastern Alignment alternative or the Eckerman Alignment is that it will need to put significant funds (somewhere in the order of $5 million) towards this proposal. That is a significant burden on council, which already has reasonable debt levels; however, I think the Gawler council is showing courage to this point.

It has been put to me that there is a way to get a route that preserves the Tiver Road option for the future within the existing bucket of funds. If that is something that is available, I would urge all parties to pursue that option. I am merely putting the question out there. If the government wants to take money off the table, instead of being able to use the existing envelope that has already been promised towards the superior alignments, then I would urge the government to make sure that they make the funds available so that we can get the best outcome possible for the community.

I know that there are other issues in Gawler when it comes to traffic. There is the Main North Road intersection that others have been pursuing, and I think that is extremely commendable. The Gawler East link road is $55 million, it is on the table now, and it is something we have to get right. I know the Gawler council is going through a difficult period, and they are going to take on a significant financial burden, but I urge the council to show some foresight and courage to take the long-term view.

I would like to talk briefly about the Concordia development, which is slated to be somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 homes, and which will create, again, a new and bigger burden on traffic management systems within Gawler. Concordia, if it goes ahead, is a chance for us to get it right this time. In any redevelopment of that area, a connection through to the Northern Expressway has to be something that is built at the earliest stages of that development so that we can make sure that we can see into the future and fix the problems before or as they arise, as opposed to the situation we have now, where businesses on the main street of Gawler are struggling in part because it is very difficult for people to drive down their road, find a park and get into their shop in the first place.

This is an issue that has been neglected over a long period of time. I think that this is an issue that many have put into the too hard basket. I agree that we have finally come to a point where we may see some sort of solution, and I understand that DPTI is pretty keen to get on and get the work done once a decision is finalised. I would like to say to the Gawler council: please make a long-term bold choice. I would like to say to the government: please be willing and accepting partners, given the fact that you have essentially lumped upon council a huge financial burden. At least come to the party in the greatest way that you can so that the people of Gawler can get the best outcome possible.

This poor planning has led to this situation in the first place. Let us use this as a case study, as a cautionary tale, about how not to go about traffic management in Gawler, or in any town in South Australia, and use the lessons we can learn from this disaster to help make sure that we make better decisions when it comes to planning towns in the future.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:45): I rise to speak against the motion, and I will explain why. First, the motion states:

(a) provide local residents with quality infrastructure to reduce congestion;

(b) create a safer environment for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; and

(c) meet the rapid growth needs of the local Gawler area.

They are very commendable objectives and ones that I support, but when you read the motion as a whole, and take into account the contribution of the member for Schubert, he does not touch those issues at all. He avoids the issue of Gawler entirely. I understand that he is the member for Schubert and will bat for the people of Schubert, and that is what this motion is about. This motion does not have Gawler at its heart at all.

I will explain. First, he talks about the Gawler East link road. He does not understand the purpose of the road or the history, because the purpose of the link road was to link Gawler East (a new development) with other parts of Gawler. It was not designed to carry through traffic from the Barossa—that was never its intention, it was not planned for that purpose.

So, his motivation behind this motion has nothing to do with Gawler or Gawler residents, even though he tries to dress it up that way: it is about the southern Barossa, and good on him if he bats for that. But, please, do not come into this place and pretend to care about Gawler when you do not. That is the first issue.

Secondly, when you talk about traffic, when you talk about transport, there are three elements: first, you try to improve the existing network to make it more efficient, and I will provide some examples of government undertakings, along with the local council, over the years, certainly since I have been the local member for the area.

He talks about new infrastructure, and certainly the Gawler East link road, amongst others, and the future north-eastern link road, are designed to provide new infrastructure to improve traffic around the town. I expressly emphasise 'around the town'. These roads are not designed to be thoroughfares; they never were. In fact, I do not think the Gawler council wants it, and neither should it. This is about getting people from Gawler East to parts of the south.

It is interesting what this motion does not talk about and what the member for Schubert did not mention at all. It is not usual, because he is a member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party, both at a state level and a federal level, has an aversion to public transport.

Mr Duluk: I caught the train in today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Davenport.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: He did not mention public transport.

Mr Pengilly: I caught the train.

Mr Duluk: I caught the train in to work today.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, member for Davenport.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: He did not mention public transport once in his whole speech, yet—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. I remind members of the standing orders, which require that members be given respect while they are speaking, and that people should not be interjecting. Unfortunately, I will have to get out the book and start now.

Mr Knoll: I'll counsel him.

The SPEAKER: You're in the wrong spot; you're not going to do anything from there. We would like to hear the contribution of the member for Light, just as we heard the contribution of the member for Schubert. Member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member for Schubert did not mention public transport once, and I will tell you why he did not mention public transport once: because at the last state election the Liberal Party was going to axe the Gawler bus service. That was their policy: they were going to axe it. They do not support public transport.

Tony Abbott made very clear that, as a national government, he would never support public transport in any place in Australia. Not only that, the current Liberal government is not supporting public transport. They have put no money into the electrification of the Gawler line. We have put our half, and the federal Liberal Party has not. The reason he has not mentioned public transport is that the Liberal Party do not believe in it, and because they do not believe in public transport they do not see public transport as a possible way of addressing the issues of the traffic congestion in Gawler.

I have made it very clear that I support public transport. I support my community having buses in and around town because buses carry more people. It is clear today that the Liberal opposition and the member for Schubert do not support it at all. He did not mention it once, yet his motion states:

(a) provide local residents with quality infrastructure to reduce congestion;

(b) create a safer environment for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; and

(c) meet the rapid growth needs of the local Gawler area.

A key element to achieve those objectives has to be public transport. We have to electrify. So, rather than sit across there like The Silence of the Lambs, they should get onto their federal members to support the electrification of the Gawler line, support public transport and the expansion of our bus service in Gawler and also do the road transport.

They have this fetish about road transport only because they do not have a sophisticated answer on how to address issues. For the member for Schubert to come into this place and sell my community short is disgraceful. It is a disgrace that he should come into this place and say to the people of Gawler, 'You are not entitled to public transport.' He did not mention it once. If it was important, it would have been a key part of his speech. His whole answer to congestion is the Gawler East link road. That is absolutely appalling. To suggest that even a link road to Tiver Road would resolve Gawler's congestion issues is selling the Gawler community short.

Perhaps it would be better if he just looked after Schubert rather than try to look after Light. He is not really doing a good job in either. Putting that aside, it is a complete disgrace that the member for Schubert would come in here and talk about improving the quality of life for people in Gawler and to say that the answer is this link road from Potts Road to Tiver Road. It is quite clear that he does not understand that community at all. It is quite clear that, in the future, the link will happen. It has been planned for, and it will happen when it is required.

I raised three issues. First, I raised the issue of improving the existing network, and I will give some examples. Secondly, I raised the issue of new infrastructure, the Gawler East link road and its purpose. Thirdly, I will talk about public transport a bit more because he did not touch public transport, neither at the state level nor at the federal level. The Liberal Party has an aversion to public transport because—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport is called to order.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you are not in your spot, so you are called to order too.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, which is for greater Gawler, includes: the Gawler East link road; the Adelaide Road/Potts Road/Para Road intersection upgrade, which the community supports and which I clearly support; the duplication of Main North Road between Potts Road and Gawler Bypass, which will improve traffic management; a north eastern bypass road of Gawler to the Sturt Highway, which I have been supporting for many years and which will occur when and if Concordia goes ahead; and a whole range of other improvements.

Let us look at some other things that have also happened in the meantime which the member for Schubert chose to ignore: in terms of improving existing infrastructure, the government spent $108,000 recently on a pedestrian refuge on Murray Street; we put in a pedestrian refuge on Main North Road, at Kingfisher Drive, Hewett; a roundabout at Main North Road and Redbanks Road, at a cost of $2.7 million, which the community supports wholeheartedly and which has improved traffic management; a painted median scheme and turn-in lanes at Main North Road near Paxton Street, which I supported and initiated; a koala crossing at Lyndoch Road near the school, which improves road safety. He does not mention pedestrian safety.

A roundabout at Jack Cooper Drive and Ryde Street again improves commuter safety. A roundabout at Adelaide Road/Nineteenth Street/Fifth Street was built and is also about to be improved again. The Evanston Railway Station upgrade—public transport—again, he did not mention that. This is what we have done: traffic signals at Main North Road/Tiver Road/Gordon Road in preparation for the development at the southern part of Gawler, which is very important. We have the infrastructure in place to allow the southern part of Gawler to expand. One day, at the appropriate time, they will be linked to the Gawler East link road, but not at this point in time. A whole range of other things are also occurring.

If you are going to come into this place and talk about improving traffic management in Gawler, firstly you need to understand the community and, secondly, you actually need to say to the community that it is entitled to a whole range of options which improve it. Those options include, as I indicated, improving the existing network—I have given examples, concrete examples, of what has happened in the last 10½ years since I have been the local member—new initiatives, which I have supported, and which are occurring now; and, thirdly, public transport. I have supported upgrades of our train station; I have supported the electrification of Gawler rail. The only people who do not support it are the Liberal Party. Not once has the member for Schubert stood up in this place and called on his federal colleagues to support it.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Finniss!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: At the last election, the whole Liberal Party's policy in Gawler for public transport was to axe the bus. That is what would happen at the next election if they got—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, Deputy Speaker—

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. What is your point of order?

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Light is not responsible for Liberal Party policy.

The SPEAKER: I think he has admitted that. Continue.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would certainly agree with the member for Finniss. I do not want to be responsible for Liberal Party policy; I am not sure anybody would.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Have you checked Facebook recently, member for Finniss?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Light!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: For those reasons, I do not support this motion. It is selling the Gawler community short and should be opposed.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:56): I rise to support the motion by the member for Schubert:

That this house recognises the urgent need to implement traffic management solutions for Gawler to—

(a) provide local residents with quality infrastructure to reduce congestion;

(b) create a safer environment for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; and

(c) meet the rapid growth needs of the local Gawler area.

Before I hear from the other side, as we have with the previous speaker, that I do not know anything about Gawler—well, I do know a little bit about Gawler. I have travelled into and around Gawler all my life because both my sets of grandparents did reside there and my family also had farming land at Angle Vale. I have watched the growth of Gawler. It was once an outlying country town, but it has certainly almost become suburban without too many green areas between that and the city.

I am pleased to see the member for Schubert fighting to get a better outcome for the residents of Gawler and the people who travel through there, because it is a central location. It is very much a commuter location, no matter which way you may be heading through to the more northern areas of the state. Whether it is people going to work or school bus time in the morning, or whether it is school time or people leaving work in the afternoon, Murray Street, the main street, is extremely congested. Even in the middle of the day, there are some severe tight spots along Murray Street. In fact, the whole street can be blocked at times and everyone is down to a crawl.

Gawler's main street is an iconic street. It has had some great old stores there in the past, like Crosby's and Eudunda Farmers with their pneumatic tubes to send their dockets around the store. Areas like Hewett to the north of the town were part of the expansion, and other proposals to expand around Roseworthy as well are putting immense pressure on Gawler and its residents. Certainly, as the member for Schubert said, there should be a better alignment that brings people around on the Tiver Road to give a better outcome for people who do not need to go through Murray Street. I do not believe Murray Street businesses will suffer (this is the main street of Gawler). I do not think they will suffer, because people will have more access into the town to be able to access those businesses and other services.

We certainly do not want to see the burden of whatever route that comes through—and we hope it is the best route to have the best outcome for the district—falling to local government. We want to see the state government play their part in making sure that the right route is put in place. With regard to infrastructure, better management and better use of facilities, I note what the member for Light said about public transport in Gawler.

I note that Gawler has what I understand is a public service, which is like a ring route. I would be interested to know how many people actually patronise that route. I am told it is not many, but I am happy to be informed if it is a lot. For someone to come in here and say that we on this side of the do not advocate for public transport, that is completely wrong. It is just completely wrong.

Mr Whetstone: Desperate.

Mr PEDERICK: Desperate, absolutely. I have advocated for public transport, whether it be through to Murray Bridge or to the south coast through Victor Harbor and Goolwa. In the case of Murray Bridge, I was a candidate 11 years ago, and it was one of the issues that came to the fore. One of the first sets of businesspeople who came to see me were those operating the private bus line at the time. We were debating contracts of bus route rights (or access rights) in this house at that stage. It is a very lucrative arrangement, as a company gets the rights to those routes and essentially no-one else can use them unless they get an exemption.

It came to light that some bizarre things had occurred, such as school buses not being able to pull up at stops so that children could swap over from one bus to the other at Tailem Bend to get into Murray Bridge. There were some really bizarre circumstances where major bus companies needed permission to go into certain areas. I am all for competition, and I think we should have more competition, so I think we should have more public transport. I certainly believe that the south coast and Murray Bridge should get appropriate Metroticketed public transport, and I have advocated for that for the whole time I have been in here and even before I got into this place. That is absolutely vital as areas grow.

We heard the member for Light speak passionately about public transport. I look across the other side at a government that has partially built a train service, in terms of the electrification of rail, where they put in some poles and forgot to put up the wires. Essentially, with electrification, that is exactly what happened. If his comrades on the other side are so passionate about public transport, why do they not get on and finish his electrified train set so that they can go up there?

Perhaps they want to iron out the problems that have been as far as the Seaford line, where we have seen some major outages because of poor cable installation and poor products. These major outages affect people using that public transport. It is ridiculous that we have a situation where electric trains have to be shunted with diesel engines to be serviced because the network to the north, towards Gawler, has not been completed. I think we have to have clean hands on this, so let us see what this government does with that proposal into the future.

I certainly agree that there need to be some far better outcomes in the Gawler area. We need to get the best out come as far as the link road and the bypass. We need to make it not just useful for locals to link from one area out of Gawler and partially bypass some of the main street, but make it take in those future needs as well because it is very much a growing community out there. There are plenty of communities growing around it and it is far better, I believe, to put the proper link road in place so that we look at those future needs instead of going for a lesser model when we could have had the better model leading us into the future.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does someone want to speak for a few minutes to give the member for Schubert a chance to get back?

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:05): I have listened with interest to the member for Schubert's motion this morning and his reasoning behind it. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the sincerity of his intent with the motion or his knowledge of it, so I was somewhat disappointed to hear the contribution from the member for Light. He does not have a mortgage on the affairs of roads that run through his area, and I do not in my area either. I think that just nitpicking and scoring political points was not all that clever. The member for Schubert—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Schubert is an astute and active new, young member to this place. He does copious amounts of work when he brings something like this to the chamber and he should have been given the respect he deserves, as far as I am concerned, rather than being torn to pieces, so it was disappointing. I heard what the member for—

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Well, you asked me to fill in.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everyone needs to stop.

Mr PENGILLY: I seek the protection of the Chair, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have thrown myself as a cloak of protection over you. Everyone has gone quiet now, so you are alright.

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Hammond made a contribution with some interesting comments on his own experience. Yes, we do understand what goes on in our own electorates but, also, when you have major road corridors that go through your electorate to other places, it is with the best of intent that members comment on that. I am quite happy for people to talk about roads that go to my electorate or through my electorate as well, including the notorious Adelaide-Victor Harbor Road. With those few words, I support the member for Schubert's comments.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:07): I am quite excited to remember that I get a right of reply. What is interesting is that when those Hansard watchers go back over this speech, they will see the fact that I was quite respectful about the way I spoke about this issue. I just implored all parties to come to the table and do the right thing, whereas other speakers may or may not have tried to make this into a personal debate, and that is disappointing. It is disappointing from the member for Light.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: Unfortunately, it is not the first time and I am sure it will not be the last. What I find most incredible is the fact that the member for Light does not think that there is a problem. If you want to solve something, the first thing you need to do is admit you have a problem. If the member for Light genuinely votes down this motion, then he can stand in peak hour traffic in Murray Street and see what happens. There is a 1½ to two-kilometre stretch of road that can take 10 minutes to go down. If the member for Light does not think it is an issue, that is fine but I think his community would think differently. First things first, if you want to fix a problem, you have to realise that you have an issue.

The Hon. P. Caica: That's the Liberal Party.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: Many of the interventions—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton!

Mr KNOLL: —that the member for Light talked about would actually help reduce traffic. When you talk about decreasing the number of car parking spaces and putting in extra pedestrian crossings, you actually make it harder for road traffic. Public transport is certainly an issue. If the member for Light wants to talk about this state government's record and how much money they wasted in the mismanagement of the electrification of the Gawler line, I am happy to have that debate too. It is interesting that he is part of a government—and he was a minister—that has its hands on the purse strings. If the state government and the member for Light are committed to public transport, why do they not fund the electrification? At the moment they are only going out to Salisbury.

This project has been delayed and reintroduced, I think, four or five times. The amount of money that they have wasted so far because they cannot even do the job properly is an absolute disgrace. If we want to talk about public transport, I am more than happy to have that debate. My issue at the moment is around road traffic and the number of cars on the road, which is only going to increase. If the member for Light does not think so, he again needs to take his head out of the sand because more and more people are coming to live in Gawler, and they all drive cars because it is an outer suburban area, which means that public transport is difficult.

If you want to catch a train from Gawler to Adelaide, that is fine. For anybody who wants to go anywhere else, it is much more problematic, so you still need cars, which is endemic in outer suburban areas or in country townships that are trying not to become outer suburban areas. That is an issue. I think that the member for Light went down this path because he is trying to deflect from the real issue. Instead of recognising that there is a problem and thinking that somehow he was being righteous in his indignation, he is hiding from the fact that in his heart he realises that there are traffic issues in Gawler.

I know that because he is in the paper regularly advocating for the Main North Road and Tulloch Road intersection upgrade, which means he obviously knows that there was a problem that does need to be fixed. However, it is more than just that intersection, and if the member does not think that it is an issue, then that is to his detriment. I commend this motion to the house, and I hope that members see fit to vote for it. If they do not, it will be because they think that everything is hunky-dory in the Town of Gawler. If that is what they do, I am more than happy to have that debate in the public space.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 16

Noes 20

Majority 4

Motion thus negatived.