Land Acquisition

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:39): I rise today to speak about compulsory acquisitions. Over the past few months, I have been contacted by many constituents who have raised serious concerns about the way in which the compulsory acquisition of their property has been conducted. The compulsory acquisition of a person's home is a matter which needs to be handled not only in accordance with the act but with sensitivity and compassion in recognition of the disruption it causes to the dispossessed owner. It is therefore disturbing for me to hear repeated stories of people feeling like they have been forced out of their homes without receiving compensation that they feel is adequate to cover their losses.

In my time as chief executive of Lands I oversaw the compulsory acquisition of properties for a number of projects, but perhaps most significant would have been properties acquired for the Entertainment Centre. Both then and now, dispossessed owners are reasonable in not wanting to stand in the way of progress. Very seldom do people steadfastly refuse to move; the main point of contention is invariably about the compensation payable. It is therefore disturbing when I hear stories of people being offered supposed market value for their property and then finding it impossible to move because the funds they have been offered are inadequate to purchase a comparable property. It is heartbreaking to hear stories of pensioners who have lived their entire life and raised their family in a single property, only to feel like the government has not only pushed them out of their home but also ripped them off.

In all my dealings with dispossessed owners, they have all been reasonable and realistic with their expectations. It is disappointing that they feel that the points they raise and the questions they ask are ignored or dismissed as mere complaints from a minority of unhappy owners. People have told me that promises that were made by one representative are forgotten about or dismissed by others. Offers and assurances of assistance are never delivered.

I have been told by DPTI that they have managed to amicably finalise over 200 purchases or acquisitions for the Torrens to Torrens project; however, I have yet to encounter even one owner who is satisfied with the process, let alone describe it as being 'amicable'. I am particularly concerned when I hear of owners who have been approached to surrender their properties outside the compulsory acquisition process. The Land Acquisition Act was written to protect not only the dispossessed owner but also the government. To try to circumvent this process can not only leave the government exposed to an unnecessary risk but is often perceived to be a way of hoodwinking dispossessed owners on an uneven playing field.

I have heard of owners being told that if they do not sell to the government then they will be stuck, as nobody will want their land and certainly they cannot sell the land. I have been told that owners are advised that moneys for acquisition are limited, and if they are not one of the first to sell then the government may run out of compensation money. Owners are inexperienced in such processes, in the main, and believe what they are told, so begrudgingly agree. Again, this all seems far from amicable.

All this is particularly worrying as I consistently hear the same stories from different constituents who are unrelated. If complaints are somewhat isolated it may be justified to paint those as disgruntled owners; however, I am hearing the same grievances time and time again. As a chief executive, I would have taken these criticisms very seriously and sought out the owners directly to come to some amicable resolution. I am not saying that compulsory acquisition is easy by any means, but I do not believe that it needs to be as difficult as it has become.