Compulsory Land Acquisition

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:11): My question is to the Minister for Transport. When will you respond, answering all questions in my representation on behalf of Mr Loc Huu Lam and Ms Vivien Loo, about your department proceeding with eviction on 15 August from their home at 237 Portrush Road, Norwood, while the amount of compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their property remains in dispute? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Ms BEDFORD: Mr Lam and Ms Loo are among 47 householders and small businesses in the electorate of the Premier whose properties are being subjected to compulsory acquisition in order to upgrade the intersection of Portrush and Magill roads. Mr Lam and Ms Loo have disputed the compensation offer made to them by the department and this matter is now before the courts. In the meantime, the department is proceeding to evict them and has placed a caveat on their property which restricts their ability to borrow in order to fund a new purchase.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (15:12): I thank the member for Florey for her question. Can I say that a response to her is something that is going to come very soon.

Ms Bedford: But I need it now.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Mr Speaker, as you could imagine, I am also extremely reluctant to talk publicly about private arrangements in relation to this. The reason I say that is because this issue is always difficult but it is one that is private. It contains sensitive financial matters of individuals who are affected.

Ms Bedford: The caveat doesn't.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In relation to the caveat issue, can I say that it's one that has been raised with me on radio before and it's one that we have not been able to get to the bottom of. In fact, my inquiries of the department suggest that this is the only time that an issue of this type has been raised. In fact, my understanding is that the caveat has now been discharged but the caveat itself would not stop the family from being able to get on and purchase another property, if that's what they choose to do.

What we have done, I understand, a number of times is try to seek further clarity as to how that issue is manifesting itself. But my advice from the department is that this is an issue that has not been seen before and we have not been able to get any real clarity as to why this claim is being made. I just reiterate that I do have, and this government does have, huge sympathy for people whose homes do need to be acquired. There is always this balance between the private interests of people and their land but the broader public interest.

Here we have an intersection, the upgrading of which is going to benefit 60,000 people across Adelaide every single day, delivering some $600 million to $900 million worth of benefit over the life of this project over the next generations. These are difficult decisions that governments need to make and not ones that we do lightly. In fact, minimising land acquisition is a key part of developing and planning infrastructure projects. But this is an issue now that has been going on for some time and one that we are working as hard as we can to bring to a resolution that is as sensitive as it can be to the people who are affected.