HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROAD CLOSURES—1934 ACT) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (10:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1934. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (10:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I refer members to my second reading explanation when I introduced a similar bill on 10 November last year. The bill lapsed with the prorogation. The bill is simpler than the last. The bill preserves section 359 closures under the Local Government Act 1934, except for road closures under section 359 prescribed by this bill. Clause 1(4) of schedule 1 defines prescribed road 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.

Ms Chapman: With the new boundaries, it might be in your electorate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Bragg says—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —that with the new boundaries it might be in my electorate, and no-one in this chamber is more willing to represent the people of North Adelaide than I am, and I hope at 11am it is annexed to the state district of Croydon.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Clause 1(1)(a) of schedule 1 says any exclusion of vehicles from a prescribed road that is the subject of a resolution under section 359 will no longer have effect after 1 July 2013.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have—many times, actually. There is also provision for the minister, on 12 weeks' notice to an affected council, to make a proclamation prescribing a road subject to a section 359 closure. I rather doubt that this provision would ever be used because there are no controversial section 359 closures, other than Barton Road, but it could be useful if Adelaide City Council seeks to rename or reconfigure the roads in this area to wriggle out of the effect of this bill.

The bill leaves it to the Adelaide City Council to restore normal traffic movement in the illustrated area marked with the letter A by 1 July 2013. I do not care how the Adelaide City Council does that; it is a matter for them. It hardly lies in the mouth of Adelaide City councillors to say that it may cost them money, given that they live off rates levied on commercial land values generated by people living outside the city limits who shop, work, study and play inside the city limits and to whom they deny the right to vote for the City Council.

The member for Adelaide's contribution on the last bill was vindictive and ad hominem. It is a rule in the house that we try to leave—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Order, members on my left!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is a rule in the house that we try to leave the family of members alone, but the member for Adelaide tried to argue—as Suzie Roux and Chris Sumner have in the past—that I have a conflict of interest in this matter owing to my daughter's once attending St Dominic's Priory School, Hill Street, North Adelaide. Suzie Roux made this claim in a letter sent to all members of parliament late last year and, sure enough, the member for Adelaide took it up. If this is a relevant interest in deliberating on legislation it is an interest I shared with more than 1,000 other South Australians and hundreds in the western suburbs.

As I recall, my daughter attended St Dominic's in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004—that is, she left eight years ago. Suzie Roux, Chris Sumner and the member for Adelaide talk as if my daughter has been repeating year 12 at St Dominic's for the past 11 years; in fact, she is in Adelaide Law School.

It is true, as the member for Adelaide says, that the road was closed in 1987 as part of a major realignment of roads, but it was driven in the government by Childers Street resident Chris Sumner, who was government leader in another place and attorney-general—now, that is a real conflict of interest. The member for Adelaide claimed in her speech on the last bill that I had 'not surveyed the people most affected in Ovingham'. The truth is that Ovingham was one of the first places letterboxed with a reply-paid leaflet about this and it has one of the highest rates of return in favour of reopening.

So, the member for Adelaide must have known that her claim was false when she made it or was recklessly indifferent to whether it was true or false at the time she made it and, funnily enough, that is exactly the reason that the federal opposition is trying to put Craig Thomson before the Privileges Committee; but, as for the member for Adelaide's misconduct, no-one here cares. The leaflet invited recipients to indicate whether they were in favour of the reopening or against it.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: I believe the member for Croydon is making allegations which can only be made under standing orders by substantive motion.

The SPEAKER: One of the problems there is I could not actually hear what was being said because of the noise that was coming from both sides of the chamber but, member for Croydon, I would ask you to be very careful in what you are saying.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I was absolutely careful not to accuse the member for Adelaide of a breach of privilege; absolutely careful not to. In a few minutes time we will know, with the handing down of the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —draft redistribution by the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission whether Ovingham remains—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. What is your point of order?

Mr MARSHALL: Point of order, standing order 125. The member opposite has been verballing the member for Adelaide for some time now, referring to her actions as being vindictive, and I ask under standing order 125 that the member withdraw offensive words against the member for Adelaide immediately.

The SPEAKER: You are very protective, member for Norwood, but it is really up to the member for Adelaide to ask for the withdrawal of those comments if she has a problem with it.

Ms SANDERSON: I ask for those words to be withdrawn under standing order 125, thank you, and apologise.

The SPEAKER: I am not sure what words you are withdrawing but I would ask you to withdraw them member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I will not be withdrawing my statement that the member for Adelaide's speech on the last occasion was vindictive and ad hominem because I am entitled to say so.

Ms SANDERSON: It is not accurate and the reference to Craig Thompson is completely unnecessary and I ask that it is withdrawn and that he apologise.

The SPEAKER: 'Vindictive' is not actually unparliamentary but I would perhaps ask the member if you wish to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down, I have not dealt with that point of order yet. Member for Croydon, do you wish to withdraw that at all?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Speaker, I was very, very careful in what I said and I suggest you re-read it, and I suggest the member for Adelaide re-reads it.

The SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, sit down.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order: I suggest that the member for Croydon is impugning improper motive on the member for Adelaide by suggesting that her speech was vindictive. If he disagrees with what she said, he can point out why he disagrees with it, but to accuse her of being motivated by vindictiveness is impugning improper motive on the member for Adelaide.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. I did not hear what the member for Croydon said. I will carefully read his comments afterwards, but at this stage I would ask the member for Croydon to—

An honourable member: Apologise.

The SPEAKER: I think it would be very difficult to get the member for Croydon to apologise on past experience.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the member used those words because he repeated them just a moment ago.

The SPEAKER: The words are not unparliamentary. 'Vindictive' is not considered to be unparliamentary. We have invited him to withdraw them and he has not, but there is really very little than can be done at this stage. Member for Croydon, I would ask you now to please refer back to the substance of the legislation that you are introducing, and please do not comment on members on the other side, and I will look at the Hansard afterwards.

Mr VENNING: I have a further point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it normal practice to stop the clock during discussions like this?

The SPEAKER: It is usually at the discretion of the Speaker in a situation like this. I am not sure whether or not we stopped the clock, but I can also use my discretion if I think there should be further time allocated.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, point of order. Might I suggest that, since the member is being deliberately provocative, it would have been best if the clock was not stopped. My understanding is—

The SPEAKER: Let him go on.

Mr WILLIAMS: —that the house has, by resolution, agreed that the clock will be stopped during grievance debate, but not during the normal course of debate.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. I am not really sure whether the member for Schubert was being protective and wanting us to stop the clock to give the member more time or allow the clock to go on. I think that the member for Croydon should be able to finish what he has to say in the next nine minutes, and, if he has not, then we will look at it. The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I raise a further point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have indicated that you are going to review the transcript of what has been said on this, I would ask you to view the words of complaint of the member for Adelaide who complained not of the 'vindictive' which has taken the course of other submissions put to you but the fact that she had been compared to the likes of Craig Thomson, and the slur that she had inflicted on her she took offence to. She confirmed to you that she took offence to that, and she asked the member for Croydon to apologise for that. When you are reviewing that I would also ask that you review the basis of her complaint which, as you rightly point out, does require the person offended to make the complaint, and that is what she in fact made the complaint about.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Bragg. Yes, I certainly will look at that. Yes, member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Madam Speaker, I understand that you will review the Hansard when you have the opportunity, but I would like you to take particular note of the fact that the member for Croydon accused the member for Adelaide of misconduct in this place.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Stuart. Minister, is this a point of order?

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Madam Speaker, I believe that it is disorderly to interject, and during the time that the member for Croydon was speaking I, on this side of the house, could barely hear what he was saying.

Mr Williams: You were lucky!

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop. That is precisely the reason why I was unable to hear some of what the member for Croydon said. I will review the transcript. There will be no more points of order on this. Member for Croydon, you will get back to the substance of your bill.

Mr PISONI: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, I said that there would be no more points of order.

Mr PISONI: Is it not disorderly to respond to interjections?

The SPEAKER: Yes, it is disorderly to respond to interjections. The member for Croydon, can you get back to your bill.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. The member for Adelaide claimed in November that notice of this measure was wholly inadequate. Given that it has been six months since my last bill was introduced, all parties have had six months' notice of this measure and the member for Adelaide and the Adelaide City Council are deprived of that excuse.

Starting in September last year, I and my volunteers have been letterboxing the state districts of Croydon and Colton and the part of West Beach that is in the Charles Sturt Council area. West Beach is in the state district of West Torrens. We have about 4,000 returns so far in favour of reopening the road and about 40 against. These figures are all matched against the electoral roll.

We will then be letterboxing the state districts of Cheltenham and Lee and then, if time permits, moving on to the state district of Adelaide. As the member for Adelaide admits, there are many people in North Adelaide who support reopening the road and many North Adelaideians on both sides of the argument who nevertheless defy their council's restriction and use the bus lane to get to the airport and other points west—on her reckoning, at least 50 a day.

I think that we will finish with about 6,000 signed-up supporters of reopening Barton Road, and at the next general election I will be writing to these people giving credit to those Independent and minor party members of the other place who do the right thing. The member for Adelaide says that the Charles Sturt Council voted against reopening Barton Road. That is not quite right. Charles Sturt Council voted against Beverley Ward councillor's Edgar Agius's motion early in the life of the new council, but that was because he had not prepared the ground for the motion or given sufficient notice to his colleagues.

Among the people voting against councillor Agius's motion were councillors who were rusted on supporters of reopening and who had been elected on a platform of supporting reopening. If the member for Adelaide were so confident that Charles Sturt councillors were against reopening, then she would have been prepared to support my last bill and leave it to a vote of Charles Sturt council. The member for Adelaide told the house that reopening would be bad for Ovingham, Bowden, Brompton and Ridleyton residents when, in fact, they had voted in the survey by a margin of about 100:1 in favour of reopening. Evidently, the member for Adelaide thinks they are suffering from collective false consciousness and cannot see where their true interests lie.

The exclusion of vehicles other than buses at Barton Road relies on a 1995 motion of the Adelaide City Council excluding named vehicles from the bus lane. The motion mentions bicycles—bicycles apparently spoil the member for Adelaide's residential amenity—and private motor vehicles but, as a magistrate observed when adjudicating a case of a Fulham Gardens man fined for driving his van through the bus lane, it does not nominate tricycles and, therefore, tricycles can be ridden through Barton Road. I am the proud owner of a cyclo made in Saigon and, therefore, I ride it through Barton Road when the media does stories on the closure. A cyclo has three wheels.

Bicycle riders berated councillor Anne Moran recently for excluding them from Barton Road, and she responded by telling the City Messenger that she would be moving to amend the 1995 exclusion motion by allowing bicycles through. She did not carry out her promise, of course, because in 1998 the parliament moved to stop closures of this type in future without the consent of the adjoining council and, if Anne Moran were to alter the temporary closure resolution to drop bicycles, the Adelaide City Council would have to obtain the consent of the Charles Sturt council to the amended resolution, something which, pace the member for Adelaide, it knows it is unlikely to obtain.

To summarise my speech when the matter was last before the parliament, the Supreme Court found that the traffic exclusions on Barton Road were not lawful. The Adelaide City Council's attempt to close the road under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act was rejected. The attempt to make the exclusions under the temporary closure provision of the 1934 Local Government Act was disingenuous but effective to date, and traffic counts show that there is no valid traffic management reason for continuing with the exclusions and that they are in the same category as North Adelaide residents fencing off sections of the Parklands for private tennis courts, locking the gate to the Parklands and denying the key to anyone but themselves.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT