Motions

Compulsory Property Acquisitions

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into matters related to the compulsory acquisition of properties as part of the state government’s north-south corridor upgrade, including:

(a) current acquisition policies and procedures of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) including a comparison of the effectiveness of these policies compared to past practices of DPTI and the Rehousing Committee;

(b) the role of the Crown Solicitor’s Office in the acquisition process;

(c) the effect the compulsory acquisition process has had on dispossessed owners, including:

(i) their ability to purchase another property;

(ii) changes to personal, financial and psychological circumstances;

(d) DPTI’s requirement to negotiate, in good faith, with dispossessed owners;

(e) the fairness of compensation offers made to dispossessed owners;

(f) the use and relevance of market value when considering compensation;

(g) valuation practices and methodology used in determining compensation;

(h) the ability for dispossessed owners to exercise their legal rights; and

(i) any other related matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the Chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 6 May 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (20:06): I rise to speak on behalf of the government to respond to the honourable member's motion. Having a house acquired that you have been living in for many years is a very stressful event for any individual, couple or family. It is something the government wishes it did not have to do but, given the nature of the north-south corridor, it is unfortunately unavoidable. That is why the government has worked, and is continuing to work, very hard to reach amicable settlements with all property owners along the north-south corridor for both the River Torrens to Torrens Road project and the Darlington upgrade project.

It will be no surprise to members that the government opposes this motion, because there are already strict requirements on government in place to ensure that the process of property acquisition is fair and equitable. I am advised that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure and the chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure have met with the honourable member on a number of occasions to discuss the issue of land acquisition generally, as well as acquisition matters on the Torrens to Torrens and Darlington upgrade projects.

While noting his previous role as the former valuer-general a number of years ago, the honourable member has previously been advised that the department undertakes the following practices during acquisition processes:

Each property landowner is negotiated with under the provisions set down in the Land Acquisition Act 1969;

DPTI endeavours to deal with each property owner in a fair, consistent and confidential manner based on their own individual circumstances;

DPTI is taking appropriate steps in both projects to ensure that property owners receive fair market value for acquisitions on the project;

The valuations are completed to professional standards set down by the Australian Property Institute for compulsory acquisition purposes;

It is also recommended by the department to property owners that they obtain their own valuation of their property, for which DPTI will reimburse reasonable costs;

This also applies to property owners seeking their own legal advice, which is recommended by the department; and

Importantly, the government strongly recommends independent advice during the acquisition process so that property owners are able to negotiate on an equal footing.

The department will also provide other heads of compensation to include amounts to cover the owners expenses in transferring their property to Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. That is conveyancing and statutory searches; expenses related to the acquiring of a new property, with stamp duty, transfer fees and conveyancing reimbursed; general disturbance compensation, which includes an amount for locating an alternate property; connection of services; and removal costs. The department has also provided one-on-one assistance to householders and businesses to find a new property. In circumstances where it is not possible to agree on an amount of compensation, the property owner has the right to seek the matter to be resolved through the courts.

I am also advised that the shadow transport minister in the other place has also received a briefing from the department on property acquisition matters on the north-south corridor where these practices were outlined. However, despite providing this opportunity to raise specific issues in this forum, the opposition, I am advised, has decided to support the honourable member's motion to create yet another select committee. An important point to make is that the department, on both major projects on the north-south corridor, has been able to work together with residents and business owners to settle voluntarily.

With over 180 properties identified for acquisition on the Torrens to Torrens project, the overwhelming majority settled voluntarily. I am advised that of the 164 properties only one property remains, which DPTI is negotiating a right of entry to. Furthermore, to date, DPTI has successfully negotiated access to approximately 99 per cent of the required properties. Importantly, to date the department has successfully reached agreement in regard to compensation with approximately 85 per cent of the parties. The department is still negotiating with the remaining parties in an attempt to reach mutually acceptable agreements. DPTI has also provided many extensions to property owners to allow time for alternative homes to be found or to resolve other affairs.

In regard to the Darlington upgrade, I am advised that approximately 45 per cent of the required properties have been acquired to date. These properties have been voluntary sales through the department approaching businesses and homeowners. I would also like to note that the creation of yet another select committee will require significant departmental resources for preparing and appearing as well as providing formal material before this potential select committee. This is a resource that would be better spent actually dealing directly with the affected businesses and homeowners along the corridor to resolve matters as quickly as possible. This would be in the interests of everyone.

In addition, any redirection of resources have the significant potential to lead to delays in the acquisition of properties along the corridor, creating a risk for both projects. Therefore, there is a potential to delay these important projects for South Australia. However, given that the opposition wanted to cancel the Torrens to Torrens project prior to the last election, I expect that they will support this motion. The responsibility for the delays on both the Torrens to Torrens and the Darlington projects as a result of creating an unnecessary select committee I feel will be left directly at the feet of the opposition.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (20:14): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate—as the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars has pointed out—that we will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's call for a select committee. I do so for a number of reasons. Clearly, Mr Darley and the shadow minister, Mr Corey Wingard (our very hard working shadow minister and member for Mitchell) have been contacted by a number of stakeholders who have been concerned with the process.

Obviously the Hon. John Darley is the former Valuer-General and I am sure he has not moved this motion to establish the select committee lightly. He knows that we have a number of them in this place but I trust his judgement that this is one that he sees as being important to get some clarity around the issue of land acquisition.

It seems that every time there is a major project—and take the Northern Expressway, which was probably before the Hon. Mr Kandelaars was elected here. I suspect that there were some significant concerns around that project, and there seem to be concerns every time. We talk about providing infrastructure for centuries to come and I am sure there will be a significant land acquisition and property acquisition over the next decade in South Australia, so I see this as an opportunity to have a look at what we are doing to see whether people are being treated fairly and equitably, that the system works well and works quickly.

The Hon. Mr Kandelaars and I drove along South Road, the Torrens to Torrens project, only a couple of days ago and nearly all the properties have been demolished but there had been some concerns when the project was first announced nearly a decade ago to underground underneath the railway line and Port Road and that area there, so it was not the full Torrens to Torrens project and I think the government actually backed away at that point because of land acquisition issues and, of course, the relocation of quite a large substation there.

We do have quite a bit of other business to deal with this evening, so I will not go on any longer, but I indicate that we are happy to support the Hon. John Darley's motion to establish a select committee. We think it will give us an opportunity to have a look at the current compulsory acquisition and land acquisition procedures to make sure that we can fine-tune them to give the community a bit more comfort and also the current government and any future governments some comfort that the parliament has had a look at the process and it is world's best practice.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (20:16): The Greens, too, will be supporting the creation of this select committee and we congratulate the Hon. John Darley on bringing this issue to us. Like the honourable member, I have received a great deal of correspondence over the last year or two from people who have been concerned and frustrated at the approach the department has taken to compulsorily acquire their properties for these road projects.

I accept what the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars says that many or even most of them might have been negotiated willingly and in good faith, but certainly not all of them. Some of the stories that I heard and some of the properties that I visited really do raise the alarm bells about how the government conducted this process.

For example, one area that I hope this committee will look into is the delay between the announcement of an intention to compulsorily acquire and the actual formal issuing of notices, because that put these property owners in limbo. Many of them suggested to me that they thought it was a deliberate strategy to try to devalue their properties before the negotiations began. If you are the owner of a property that you know is earmarked for eventual acquisition, your ability to rent it out, for example, is very much diminished, so these people were basically pleading with the government to bring it on—issue the formal notices, let's get negotiations underway—and yet the government dragged its feet. So, that is certainly worth having a look at.

I have to comment on the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' comment that somehow the creation of a select committee of the upper house of parliament is going to delay these projects and it will be all our fault. I have not heard such a petulant comment from the honourable member for some time because he knows full well that nothing select committees do in this chamber delays executive action. In fact, to its discredit, the government has a habit of completely ignoring select committees.

Others will correct me if I have it wrong, but certainly under the Parliamentary Committees Act there is an obligation on the government to respond to reports from standing committees but there is no obligation, as I understand it, for the government to respond to the recommendations of select committees. They exercise their right regularly to not respond to select committees, so for the honourable member to suggest that somehow a vote to be taken shortly is prejudicing all this economic activity is laughable.

I will pose the question: what if it did? Let us have a look at these projects, whether it is the Darlington project or the Torrens to Torrens project. We ask ourselves: what evidence is there for the massive expenditure of funds that is proposed to show that these projects will actually achieve anything? That might sound quite a radical proposition, but if members have studied international and Australian trends over the last few years they will know that there is a law of transport, and it is akin to a law of physics, that traffic expands to fill the available space. It is what has happened everywhere on the planet. In fact, even the United Kingdom royal commission into transport, which must be 20 years old now, the number one recommendation of that royal commission was: stop building new roads, they do not work. They destroy cities. They do not relieve congestion.

There is even more literature at the moment, analysis from around the world, to show that even congestion itself is overstated. Historically, transport planners only have one answer to congestion and that is to increase road space. Of course, there are a range of other options, such as providing alternatives like public transport and land use planning to reduce the need to travel. So, the Greens are very sceptical of the cost benefit of these projects. In fact, when we asked the government for an overall cost benefit analysis for the north-south road project, there is none. There is cost benefit analyses for little aspects of it, which I think are dubious, but there is no overall project.

As we know, this north-south freeway that the RAA has been calling for for years is the last remnant, the last hurrah of the MATS plan (the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study), that plan for the 1960s which involved contracting American traffic engineers, giving them a map and a texta colour and telling them to do their worst, and they did. Like a little kid with a crayon, they drew freeways all over Adelaide, all aspects of it. Even in the foothills of Adelaide where I live there was going to be a freeway along what is now Ayliffes Road. There were freeways everywhere, and that was the MATS plan. The government sensibly abandoned most of that, but they have hung onto this dream that we will have a north-south freeway, and that is to be South Road.

I will just refer members to some of the recent literature and commentary that is out there. There is an excellent article by Leigh Glover from the University of Melbourne, 'New freeways cure congestion: time to put the myth to bed.' He actually explores a range of myths, including the one that faster speeds reduce fuel consumption and lower emissions. They do not, they make them worse. That freeways help outer suburban communities. They do not. That road congestion is a drain on the economy. It is not. That was a 2013 article.

There is a more recent article from 2015 by Jake Whitehead from the Queensland University of Technology, 'Traffic congestion: is there a miracle cure? (Hint: it's not roads).' The one I do want to refer to a little bit is one that came out two days ago from someone who is known to some of us here, Professor Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University. The Environment, Resources and Development Committee consulted with Professor Newman on our public transport inquiry some years ago.

Peter Newman is probably this country's foremost authority on transport, on oil dependence and on the impact of traffic on cities. His article in The Conversation from two days ago is, 'Don't panic! Traffic congestion is not coming for our cities.' He points out that in Adelaide, in other Australian cities and around the world in developed countries the congestion trends have been based on projections and not on actual data. He points out that, in reality, Australian cities peaked in car use per person in 2004, and that happened in all developed countries in the world. That is not to say that there is not, as the population grows, more cars on some roads some of the time, but the point is that there are solutions other than roads to deal with that problem.

Professor Newman points out that for decades the transport planning profession has used what is known as a four-step model for predicting traffic and hence providing for road capacity, and they never suggest other options, they do not suggest public transport or land use changes, and that most European countries have now done away with that type of modelling because they have seen what it did to the heart of American cities.

So, really the issue of these major road projects, north and south, is, as I once described in response to an RAA survey, a little bit like the man who goes into the doctor and says, with a very nasally voice, 'Doctor, doctor, my nose is terribly congested', and the doctor says, 'No problem, sir, we'll just widen it.' That is the approach that road traffic planners have had to perceived congestion: you do not deal with the problem, you just create more road space.

That may be relevant to the terms of reference of this inquiry because it is to do with spending billions of dollars creating a freeway north and south. I notice that 'Any other related matters' is included as one of the terms of reference for this inquiry, and I hope that the committee will see its way to looking at not just the valuation issues and whether people have been dealt with fairly in terms of the compulsory acquisition of their properties but in fact whether these projects have any merit at all in the 21^st century.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:25): I rise briefly to advise the house that Family First will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's proposal for a select committee. I accept that we are inundated with select committees at the moment, but there is a simple reason for that, and that is that we do not have a transparent government, we do not have a government that goes out there and actually talks with the people, works with the people and acts on behalf of the people. That is why we have these select committees. If the government, after 14 years in this place, woke up to the fact that they do not dominate and that they are in a privileged position, we would not have to have these select committees.

Having said that, I indicate that we will be supporting the Hon. John Darley for different reasons from the Greens', I might add. We would not be here debating this tonight if the Labor governments that have dominated this parliament for most of the last 50 years had taken on the opportunity of what Sir Thomas Playford put forward with the MAT scheme, which was to have a proper road infrastructure plan that would roll out over a period of time to give Adelaide an economic advantage and the advantage of being able to grow properly and be a real economy and a real power player in Australia. Instead, what happened is that as they accumulated debt and mismanaged the economy they flogged that land off, and that is why we have the problem we have today.

Having said that, we support the Torrens-to-Torrens project and we do support fixing up Laffer's Triangle at Darlington, because it is still a dog's breakfast when you come off the duplication of the Southern Expressway. But we are supporting the Hon. John Darley for one reason only, and that is because people need a fair go when compulsory acquisition occurs. We have to have legislation that allows compulsory acquisition, because we have to look at the interests of the broader community.

In saying that, we also have to ensure that when compulsory acquisition occurs people get a fair go. I have dealt with too many people over a long period of time who do not get a fair go when compulsory acquisition occurs. So, let's have an open and transparent inquiry into this to look at better outcomes for that small percentage of people who are disaffected in order to give the absolute majority of South Australians an opportunity.

I will finish with this one point: have a look at the record. When Martin Hamilton-Smith was with the Liberal Party, before he was given the opportunity of aspiring to become the leader and the premier, he was out there championing the problems with respect to the extensions and improvements of Portrush Road and of the Gallipoli Underpass and saying how bad it was that the Labor Party was screwing people because it did not pay proper compensation. So, I hope Martin Hamilton-Smith supports this select committee because, if he does not, he is an absolute hypocrite.

We support the select committee for the purpose of looking after people who are disaffected. I am surprised that the government, with Mr Hamilton-Smith as a senior minister in the Labor cabinet, is not out there supporting this select committee for the reasons he used to espouse in order to protect people. All of a sudden, the ball game has changed. Well, it has not changed for Family First, and we are supporting the Hon. John Darley.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:29): First of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for their valuable contributions, and I commend the motion to the house.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:29): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 18 November 2015.

Motion carried.