LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROAD CLOSURES—1934 ACT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (23:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

When section 359 of the Local Government Act 1934 was enacted in 1986, it was intended that this provision would be used only for temporary road closures. However, as the chamber is aware, this section has been relied upon for hundreds of permanent road closures across South Australia, only two of which were controversial and only one of which remains controversial. The two that were controversial were controversial because both unilaterally denied people from the neighbouring municipality access to the municipality that imposed them.

I understand a general survey of the GovernmentGazette by the Office for State/Local Government Relations last year showed that since 2006 a total of 52 roads have been affected, either partially or fully, and the resolutions remain in force in reliance on section 359 of the 1934 act. These closures were enacted without prior community consultation and took effect almost immediately.

The member for Croydon has remained an advocate for over 25 years for Barton Road's closure being subjected to due process and he has drafted the bill before us in consultation with the community, government agencies and the Local Government Association. I am reliably informed that he has more than 6,000 South Australian electors each matched against the electoral roll supporting this bill.

I understand that section 359 had already been earmarked for repeal through the review of the local government acts. The intention was to move away from the odd position in which we find ourselves of having two local government acts—1934 and 1999. I think the honourable member's proposal complements this legislative development. I think the bill takes a sensible approach rather than proposing a complete repeal of section 359 which would in effect require the reopening of an unknown number of council roads. The bill preserves section 359 closures, therefore roads currently closed under this section will remain closed despite the repeal of the power on which councils rely. The Local Government Association maintains neutrality on the bill.

The exception will be roads that are closed pursuant to section 359 that are deemed to be prescribed roads. The Governor by proclamation may declare a road to be within the ambit of the definition of a prescribed road. Clause 1(4) of schedule 1 defines prescribed roads as 'an area of road or road reserve marked with the letter A in the plan set out in schedule 2'. That plan illustrates in a map the Barton Road reserve within which is located the Barton Road bus lane. It is pursuant to this section that Barton Road is reopened to two-way traffic.

From the time the act is intended to come into operation on 1 July 2013, no council will be able to utilise section 359 to close a road or any portion thereof to local traffic. However, this does not mean that councils will no longer be able to direct which roads are open to traffic and which should be closed off.

If a council wishes to close a road, there are three other statutory provisions on which it may rely: (1) for a special occasion when a road or public place is expected to be unusually crowded, the mayor may give reasonable directions under section 59 of the Summary Offences Act 1953; (2) a partial or full road closure for the purposes of rationalising the flow or impact of traffic may be undertaken pursuant to section 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1961; for this process, at least one month's public consultation is required; and (3) alternatively, to close a road on a permanent basis, the procedure outlined in the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991 is available. This option also requires a period of public consultation.

The Adelaide City Council applied for permission to close Barton Road under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act in 1992 and was refused on the grounds that the road was reasonably required for public use. As I have mentioned, section 359 was already earmarked for repeal. The basis for this action is simply that all future road closures should be subject to community consultation.

Section 359 was never intended to be available for a council to close a road indefinitely. It is unfortunate that this is how it happened with Barton Road in 1994. The principle for which the member for Croydon has 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, unless of course it chooses to use the conventional means, namely the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act, in which case the Surveyor-General and the minister adjudicate in the public interest. As Rex Jory wrote in The Advertiser in November last year:

North Adelaide residents may deny it, but the closure of Barton Road is a shameful piece of class discrimination. The upstairs and downstairs of the street directory. A case of money talking...they give the appearance of seeking to retain a privilege available to few other South Australians.

The provisions I mentioned mean that councils will still have available under the Road Traffic Act 1961 means to effect new closures of roads entirely within their own territory without resorting to the formalities of the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act. Although it is not intended that the power of the Governor to proclaim as reopened a road closed pursuant to section 359 other that Barton Road, an adequate period of 12 weeks for the affected council has been provided in the bill should it ever be deemed appropriate for such a declaration to be made. This is a fair approach.

I am aware that some residents of North Adelaide have raised concerns about the bill, in particular, the potential impact it will have on road safety and traffic flow in their suburb. Other North Adelaide residents support the reopening of the road. Although these are valid concerns, I believe the obstacles are not insurmountable. With proper planning between the Charles Sturt and the Adelaide City councils, as well as the state government, workable solutions can be achieved.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.