Compulsory Land Acquisition

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:10): I rise today on behalf of two of my wonderful constituents, Peter and Kathy Taylor from Nantawarra. Peter and Kathy own a farm just off Highway 1, just off the Princes Highway, where they have cared for the land for decades. The farmhouse in which they live is only 150 metres away from the highway, which is currently slated for duplication that will take it from its current two lanes to a four-lane roadway.

It needs to be stressed at this junction that the Taylors do not oppose the duplication of the highway; they acknowledge the great benefits that will have for traffic flow. However, in order for this duplication to happen there have been some exploratory talks with the Taylors about the compulsory acquisition of their land on the eastern side of the road. Coincidentally, that is also the side of the road on which the Taylors' house is situated, and the proposed acquisition would take that road corridor boundary to within a very short distance of their residence.

I visited the Taylors early in the week, and the traffic is already quite loud and obtrusive along that road. You can hear it quite clearly from their residence, and I think that having that roadway moved closer to their house would make it almost unbearable. I do not think anyone would want to live that close to national Highway 1 and live that close to constant heavy traffic flow. Thankfully, there is a solution readily available.

On the western side of the road there is a large corridor that is currently owned by the Crown which is currently occupied by a small amount of vegetation. On behalf of the Taylors, I have been advocating that that corridor be used to accommodate the road duplication rather than the paddocks that abut their home. The corridor is wide enough—40 metres wide at some points, according to the Taylors—to accommodate a significant majority of the new road, and it would be a far more economic option than acquiring a significant portion of farmland.

Less compulsory acquisition means less expense for the department, and less spent on land means more can be spent on the road—a wonderful result for all involved. Of course, there would be those who argue that the loss of vegetation should be the overriding concern, but I would argue that that small amount of vegetation could easily be replaced. My understanding is that where roads are duplicated it is necessary that there be a verge left between those two dual-lane carriageways for safety reasons.

Any displaced vegetation could be replanted there or perhaps new, more appropriate native vegetation could be planted in its place. I believe there is scope to have more native vegetation placed between the roadways than currently exists as opposed to what is in that road corridor adjacent to the road. I have been in contact with the Minister for Environment's office on this front, and I am looking forward to hearing back from him about investigating this option.

In my view, there is no reason to acquire the Taylors' paddocks when there is a wide, unused, Crown-owned corridor immediately adjacent to the road. Why compulsorily acquire expensive, fertile farmland and threaten the viability of the Taylors' family business when there is a sensible option of a Crown-owned parcel of land readily available for use? I have met with representatives from the department along with the Taylors to put this option forward, and any help the minister can provide on this front would certainly be greatly appreciated by myself—and, of course, the Taylors.

On that front, I have to commend the government, both state and federal, on that initiative, the duplication of the Princes Highway, to improve traffic flow. Included in that I would like to congratulate the government on the significant investment at Port Wakefield—a huge amount of dirt has been moved around there to commence the upgrade of that traffic logjam—as well as the Northern Connector, which opened recently and has had a tremendous impact on those of my constituents who like to get to Adelaide, making sure their travel time has been significantly reduced.

Unfortunately, that joy of reduced travel times might well be short lived with the recent announcement that there will be traffic lights installed at Buckland Park to accommodate the residential development of Riverlea. It does not make sense to install a set of stoplights, lights that will become the only set of lights between Port Augusta and Port Adelaide, after so much good work has been done on improving traffic flow. It will, in my view, have a disastrous effect on traffic flow, create an enormous bottleneck and have a significant impact on the efficiency of freight movement from my electorate trying to get to Port Adelaide.

In my view, the installation of these lights needs to be stopped. None of the other residential developments on the other side of the road have had lights imposed upon the people of Narungga. An alternative option should be considered with some haste to prevent this disastrous decision having an impact on my constituents. I wrote to the minister on this topic about a month ago and I look forward to hearing a response.

Common sense needs to be applied in the development of road infrastructure. Using available Crown land to accommodate road duplication rather than acquiring expensive farmland is an example of that common sense. Installing traffic lights along Highway 1, the busiest freight route in the state, completely undoing the previous improvements to traffic flow, is an example of not using that common sense. Let's use common sense on road infrastructure.