HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-07-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ROAD CLOSURES—1934 ACT) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 2.

The CHAIR: Before we proceed, I understand that there has been a small procedural error. We need to put clause 2 as amended to the committee.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Delete this clause and substitute:

4—Amendment of section 359—Prohibition of traffic or closure of streets or roads

Section 359—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) This section does not apply in relation to the prescribed road under Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Road Closures—1934 Act) Amendment Act 2012.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 3, line 1—Delete the heading and substitute:

Schedule 1—Section 359 of the Act not to apply to prescribed road

Clause 1, page 3—

Lines 3 to 28—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) Any exclusion of vehicles from the prescribed road in force under section 359 of the principal act immediately before 1 July 2013, or due to take effect on or after 1 July 2013, will no longer have effect on 1 July 2013 (and the relevant resolution will be taken to be revoked).

(2) The Adelaide City Council must, when an exclusion ceases to have effect under subclause (1), take steps to comply with subclause (3) as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so and must then, at an appropriate time, remove any barricades or other traffic control devices that have been installed to give effect to the exclusion.

Line 35—Delete the definition of 'council'

Lines 36 to 40—Delete the definition and substitute:

'prescribed road' means the area of road, or road reserve, marked with the letter 'A' in the plan set out in Schedule 2;

Clause 1, page 4, lines 3 to 15—Delete subclauses (5) and (6)

Ms CHAPMAN: My understanding, member for Croydon, is that the current bill before us exclusively relates to the Adelaide City Council's obligations—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To Barton Road.

Ms CHAPMAN: To Barton Road, and no longer are other councils, under the previous bill, under consideration. Can the member explain why it was necessary to peel off all these others, given his principled position on this, about it applying to all councils?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, sure. The history of this is that I tried to find some common ground with the Adelaide City Council and that group of North Adelaide residents who support continued closure. It is important to mention that there are North Adelaide residents who support reopening the road, and I will be—

An honourable member: Name them.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, Mr Keogh, the former mayor of West Torrens, lives up there. The nuns who live at St Dominic's Priory school support its reopening. When the bill was first moved I was contacted by people from North Adelaide saying that they supported the reopening. Indeed, Kate Ellis, the member for the federal division of Adelaide, had a street corner meeting in Wellington Square where a group of North Adelaide residents argued about whether Barton Road should be reopened or not; some were in favour of the continued arrangements, others were in favour of reopening it.

Presumably those North Adelaide residents who habitually drive through the bus lane going to and from the airport, certainly for that 30 seconds that they are on the bus lane, think it is a good thing to be able to move through the bus lane. Bob Francis supports reopening Barton Road, and he is a North Adelaide resident.

Moving on from that, I tried to arrange some sort of a compromise whereby the current bus lane would be retained—a kind of chicane—and there could be alternate one-way movement through that bus lane, regulated by a traffic light. That seemed to me to be a reasonable compromise, because people would not go rushing up Barton Road into western North Adelaide from my electorate or from Ovingham unless they had some business in western North Adelaide.

No-one seriously argues that reopening this road creates a route to the central business district; it is just not sensible for any motorist to go from Ovingham, Bowden, Brompton or Hindmarsh to the CBD via Barton Road. You would only use it if you had business in western North Adelaide, such as at Calvary Hospital, Mary Potter Hospice, St Dominic's Priory school, Helping Hand, doctors' and dentists' surgeries in that area—and, indeed, the O'Connell Street cafes and restaurants.

So I put this idea of alternate one-way movement through the chicane, but the Adelaide City Council's view is that they are not willing to discuss it or to compromise on it. It is their way or the highway, as it were.

My first bill said that the principle here is the principle that I had inserted in the City of Adelaide Bill and in, as I recall, the Road Traffic Act. I did that from opposition because even elements of the Liberal Party accepted my arguments—and certainly they were under pressure because of the support for my argument from the then member for Mount Gambier, the member for MacKillop (yes, strange as it may seem—he was then fiercely independent) and the member for Chaffey, and that was that, if a council wants to close a road running from its territory into the territory of another council, unless it went through the procedures of the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act, if it is going to use section 359, the temporary closure provision of the 1934 Local Government Act, then the council that is closing the road or imposing the restrictions ought to do so with the consent of the other council that is affected, and parliament accepted my argument and that is now the law in the Road Traffic Act and the City of Adelaide Act.

All I want is that principle applied to Barton Road, because I can assure the committee that, once the Supreme Court pointed out in 1990 that the closure there had been made without any legal authority—no legal authority substratum of law underlying it—and once the Supreme Court decided that, the then Hindmarsh council took a view that it was opposed to the closure. That is the predecessor in title of the Charles Sturt council. Indeed, if you look at my leaflet that I am distributing so widely, you will see a photograph in 1992 of me with my bicycle at the bus lane, standing alongside John Hunt who was a deputy chief executive of the town of Hindmarsh. So much for the member for Adelaide's argument that the town of Hindmarsh consented to this, that it was done with its agreement! It was not!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Why would she say that?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Why would she say that? Perhaps the member for Adelaide says it because there was no dissent expressed from the Hindmarsh council in 1987, before the ring route bridge was completed over the northern railway.

Ms Sanderson: Part of the works.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That's right.

Ms Sanderson: It's all part of it.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, the Barton Road restrictions were imposed three years before the bridge over the northern railway was opened to complete the north-west ring route around the city. The reason the Hindmarsh council would have acquiesced in that closure is that there was a valid traffic management reason for it at the time.

Visualise it if you will, visualise there being no bridge over the northern railway at Bowden: Park Terrace on both sides ends in huge piles of clay. So, one way to get from the western suburbs to the north or the north-eastern suburbs is to go from near Gerard Industries, Clipsal, travelling north-east; you go over North Adelaide Railway Station Road, a road that no longer exists, over the level crossing at the North Adelaide railway station; you then turn left up War Memorial Drive, Mildred Road (call it what you will) and you are travelling north. Then you turn right into Barton Road and go along Barton Terrace West because you are trying to get to Prospect Road or Main North Road. There was heaps of traffic going through there, and to put in that restriction was entirely legitimate.

If I had been asked at the time, I would have supported it. But, when the north-west ring route was completed with the bridge over the northern railway, the traffic management justification for the closure disappeared because people travelling from the north and the north-east to the west would use the ring route and people travelling from the west to the north or the north-east would use the ring route. What would they want to go through the side streets of North Adelaide for?

I was there when Frank Blevins, the minister, opened the bridge—I was a newly elected member of parliament—and the first thing that was done was the department of transport crew or highways department crews rushed in and closed North Adelaide Railway Station Road with 44-gallon drums. I remember Gordon Howie chasing them and asking them if they had legal authority for it at the time. I do not know whether they did but the road is not there. Indeed, there used to be another road leading from North Adelaide Railway Station up the hill to Strangways Terrace and that was closed a long time ago.

Ms Chapman: Should we reopen that one?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What a good idea!

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Restore Colonel Light's vision.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for West Torrens interjects that we are restoring Colonel Light's vision and, you know, he is right. If you look at Colonel Light's maps of Adelaide and North Adelaide, you will see Barton Road there hanging off the north-western corner of the city and leading down the hill to what would become the town of Hindmarsh, which was the first municipality created in South Australia, other than the city council.

Ms Chapman: What about Kingscote, thank you very much?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I'm sorry?

Ms Chapman: What about Kingscote?

The CHAIR: I don't think that is relevant to this debate. Can you get back to the debate, please?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, Kingscote might have been a settlement, but it was not a municipality. Do you want to make it interesting? I will give you 5:2.

I was quite happy to have a situation whereby the Adelaide City Council would, by a bill that goes through the parliament, be given six months to ask Charles Sturt council whether Charles Sturt council would consent to the continued operation of the arrangements at Barton Road. That seemed to me to be a fair thing, especially since we have a very strongly anti-Labor mayor now who has a faction with a large representation on the Charles Sturt council. We have the member for Adelaide trying to tell the committee in the house that the Charles Sturt council is against the reopening of Barton Road.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You're joking!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, this is what the member for Adelaide is saying. You know what? I would be really happy if the member for Adelaide would be as good as her word and agree to my original bill, and then we will test what the position of the Charles Sturt council really is, because then they can have a vote. For the first time in 25 years, the municipality representing people in Ovingham, Bowden, Brompton and Hindmarsh can actually have a vote on this. I would agree to that. Will you agree to that, member for Adelaide?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Of course not.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, of course you will not because you know the truth is that, if the Charles Sturt council had a considered deliberative vote on this matter, they would overwhelmingly support reopening the road—she knows that. So, the member for Adelaide is speaking with a forked tongue on the question of what the Charles Sturt council's true position is on this.

Given that the Liberal Party and the city council were not willing to accept my suggested compromise, and given that the Local Government Association was anxious to retain section 359 of the 1934 Local Government Act to maintain the broadest possible discretion in councils to close roads on a temporary basis, I capitulated and brought in a bill, as amended, which relates only to Barton Road; that is, a bill that relates only to the particular misuse of section 359 of the Local Government Act which, I reiterate, is a temporary closure provision. When it was inserted in the act in 1986 both the minister and the opposition spokesman on transport (Hon. Diana Laidlaw) said, 'This is a temporary closure provision to close roads for the purposes of street fairs or pageants.' That is what they said. It is on the record. It was actually in the head note to the section—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, it is not about improving property values permanently. I would say to the member for Adelaide that there has been a very, very long-term street fair going on in Barton Road for the last 25 years.

Ms Sanderson: You're the ringleader.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I'm the ringleader?

Ms Chapman: The clown.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you very much. So—

The CHAIR: Order! I think that is unparliamentary.

Ms Chapman: What, the word 'clown'?

The CHAIR: The member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: With respect, Mr Chairman, I do not think there was any response to that interjection other than from you, in which case it would not be recorded.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is now recorded and it is unparliamentary, is it not?

The CHAIR: I think so. I think that you should just withdraw it and we will move on.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Thank you. We move on.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Adelaide said it, not the member for Bragg.

The CHAIR: Actually, both of them said it. I heard both of them say it. My hearing is pretty good.

Ms SANDERSON: I withdraw it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order. Could the member for Adelaide go to her place and do it properly?

The CHAIR: The member for Adelaide has withdrawn it. I accept that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Rather than—

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Did you say 'Vice Chairman'? Surely he is the Chairman of Committees, are you not, sir?

The CHAIR: It doesn't matter. The member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have moved to the position where, to keep the Local Government Association happy and neutral on this question, I have framed it so that the bill applies to a particularly flagrant misuse of the temporary closure provision of the 1934 Local Government Act. The reason that the Adelaide City Council used this section is that the Supreme Court found that the arrangements at Barton Road were wholly unlawful in 1990.

The reason they did that is that the police had nicked Gordon Howie (the indefatigable traffic law campaigner) at Barton Road and he had challenged his fine in the Supreme Court, and Gordon Howie won. At that point the Adelaide City Council realised that it had gone ahead with this plan without any legal underpinning, and therefore it had defined legal underpinning.

It then moved to use the correct section of the law, the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act, under which the proposed closure is advertised. Anyone affected has an opportunity to put in a submission about it, and the council concerned has to hear those submissions and make a recommendation.

By the way, during those deliberations we had Michael Abbott QC, who lived on, I think, Barnard Street in western North Adelaide, saying that the crime rate would go up if my constituents were allowed to use Barton Road and Hill Street—the crime rate would go up; it is on the record. Indeed, previously there had been anonymous material circulating in western North Adelaide saying, 'We can't let these lower-class people be riding and driving on our streets'—anonymous material circulated in North Adelaide. Indeed, the late Ray Polkinghorne, who was a columnist for The Advertiser, wrote—

Ms Chapman: A good one.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —a very good columnist—a column on how shocked he was by this hate material being circulated in North Adelaide anonymously about people from Bowden and Brompton. The important thing was that, from the point of view of the Local Government Association, this is simply a dispute between the Adelaide City Council on one side and the City of Charles Sturt on the other.

The association is happy for it to be resolved by a bill that addresses the particular vice and, if the government later on abolishes section 359 of the 1934 act or recasts it or transfers it to the Road Traffic Act with appropriate safeguards, then that is a matter between the LGA and the minister for local government. I want to stay out of that. I want to keep the LGA neutral about this bill, so I have proceeded in the way I have to address the particular vice.

Ms CHAPMAN: To remedy the ill, member for Croydon, which you see yourself as the great warrior to do, at any time have you received any correspondence from the Charles Sturt council requesting you to progress this bill to protect—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not need the minister's interruption. I just need to ask the member whether he has received any correspondence confirming any resolution of the council asking him to come to its aid and to advance this legislation? And, if so, when?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: After the member for Adelaide quoted the Chief Executive of the Charles Sturt council, Mr Mark Withers, in aid of her cause the last time this was debated, or perhaps the time before last (I cannot remember which), I wrote to Mr Withers to say that I was persisting with the bill, that if the member for Adelaide were right perhaps he had some technical objection to the bill, and he wrote back to say that he felt that the member for Adelaide's account of what he had said was not entirely accurate, that what he had said was that, if the bill were progressed swiftly and became law swiftly, then that would be inconvenient for the Charles Sturt council because there might be certain knock-on effects of the reopening in the Charles Sturt area and he wanted to have time to respond to reopening. He has had that time, because the bill has been delayed by six months.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, at any time since that time, have you received any correspondence from the council, its having had time, as you suggest, seeking that you advance this bill?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Not from the current Charles Sturt council. I have had support, I think from resolutions of the Charles Sturt council and its predecessor in title, the Town of Hindmarsh and, indeed, there are members of the Charles Sturt council such as the councillor for Hindmarsh ward, councillor Paul Alexandrides, and the councillor for Beverley ward, Edgar Agius, who were elected explicitly on a platform of reopening Barton Road. That was their election platform.

When the member for Adelaide tries to say that the vote of the Charles Sturt council in, I think, November 2011 against councillor Agius's motion to move immediately for reopening, its defeat is an indication that the Charles Sturt council does not support the reopening, councillor Paul Alexandrides, who was elected on a platform of reopening Barton Road, voted against that motion. So, clearly, the vote on it was procedural and not substantive and, indeed, that is what councillors will tell me.

I notice that in the member for Adelaide's contribution today, and previously, she asserts, yet again, that I have not surveyed the people of Ovingham about the closure.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You're kidding!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: She said it.

Ms Sanderson: You said you haven't surveyed the people in my electorate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, I didn't. I surveyed the people of Ovingham first, and here they are. Wanting reopening of Barton Road—Noble Street, Ovingham; Park Terrace, Ovingham; Telford Street, Ovingham; Gilbert Street, Ovingham; Guthrie Street, Ovingham; Torrens Road, Ovingham. And so it goes on, and we are talking about a very small suburb. But, in fairness, I do have two households that have told me they want the road to remain closed, one from Telford Street and one who are not on the electoral roll.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having explained that you have responded to the request of the LGA in this regard and that you have now narrowed the focus of the bill just to Barton Terrace, one would hope that that will then alleviate questions being raised of whether roads such as Beaumont Road would suffer the same fate under a bill such as this. I think there will be argument that there had not been consultation at the time with all the relevant councils. Certainly the Adelaide City Council was keen to do that, and I do not think there is anyone in the south-east corner that is all that keen to have it reopened.

There are a number of people, I am happy to advise the house, including people who have viewed the options for sorting out the Britannia roundabout and the relieving of pressure of the eastern traffic moving through to the city, for whom the reopening of Beaumont Road might significantly release the pressure in that regard. The department of transport has given advice on that matter to me as the local member. The fact that they are actively planting a whole lot of trees over it should be enough to indicate whether they have any intention of even considering that.

I think you will appreciate that, historically, Barton Terrace is not the only road that has gone through a process which, in today's expectation of consultation, has not proceeded. In any event, this is now narrowed to Barton Terrace. Given that we received these amendments, that were tabled this morning, when did you receive advice from the LGA that this would be the better course?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I had a cup of tea with Wendy Campana and her assistant in the House of Assembly lounge just last week, and I promised her to make sure the LGA stayed neutral in this stoush, that I would consult parliamentary counsel and narrow the question to Barton Terrace, to make the prescribed road provision one particular road reserve, and simply say that the Adelaide City Council would have until 1 July to reconfigure the road so that motor vehicles and bicycles could move in two directions through it.

My view is that to use section 359 of the Local Government Act for permanent closure is an abuse of the section. That is when Nick Xenophon and I got together in the 1997 to 2002 parliament to get a bill similar to this through the parliament and, indeed, we did get it through the other place; we got it through the Legislative Council. The only trouble is that we could not get it through the House of Assembly.

Ms Chapman: It might be the other way round this time.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, who knows? One of the reasons Nick Xenophon was on board was because the Tea Tree Gully council had used, I think, section 359 of the Local Government Act to close the Silkes Road ford over the River Torrens without the consent of the Campbelltown council. So that was his Barton Road in his part of the world. Subsequently, the Campbelltown council consented to the Tea Tree Gully council going through a roads opening and closing act procedure to close the ford permanently, and it is now closed permanently, and that is the proper procedure to go through.

Ms CHAPMAN: I know that we have already voted on the second reading but, of course, I am expecting that you, member for Croydon, will be relying on your ministerial colleagues on your side of the house to support the third reading. I know the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Transport Services have not contributed to this debate but have supported the second reading at this point. Have they presented to you any modelling, traffic survey, management, or detouring that would in any way interfere with the proper traffic management of this area by the opening?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Let us get this issue into some perspective. On the one hand, the opposition belittles this bill as an attempt to introduce to the state parliament a mere municipal issue which is trivial. Trivial, it is an obsession of mine, but it is trivial and no one cares; no one is listening, as a member for Chaffey said yesterday.

On the other hand, the member for Bragg tries to do the opposite and says that this has statewide traffic management consequences for the north-west ring route and asks, 'What studies have been done by Transport SA to see how this will impact on the surrounding area?' Let us get this into perspective: this is principally about St Dominic's mums and dads taking their daughters to and from school in the morning and the afternoon.

Ms Chapman: Then there is a conflict of interest, Michael.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And what conflict of interest is that?

Ms Chapman: You know.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What is the conflict of interest?

Ms Chapman: We discussed that before.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, tell us. Share it with the committee.

Ms Chapman: Go on.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, it is so low and vile you will not do it. I will tell the committee what the alleged conflict of interest is: my daughter once attended St Dominic's Priory school.

Ms Sanderson: Jack Snelling's daughter now?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And apparently the member for Adelaide alleges that the member for Playford's daughter attends St Dominic's Priory school. Let us get this right: the Treasurer should not be allowed to vote on this bill because of conflict of interest because his daughter may or may not go to St Dominic's Priory school—

Ms Sanderson: We didn't say that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —but Legh Davis, the Liberal Party treasurer and MLC, who owned a property on the corner of Hill Street and Barton Terrace West, was allowed to vote, and did vote on this bill when Nick Xenophon moved it. Talk about rich!

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members on both my left and right will get back to the substance of the bill, please.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The consequences of this Adelaide City Council road being opened for the north-west ring route are nil, zip, nothing.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That's right.

Ms Chapman: They didn't give you any information?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Nothing. What will happen is that people who live in Ovingham, Bowden, Brompton, Hindmarsh, and perhaps some from further afield, such as the electorate of Colton, will decide that, rather than going all the way down through the golf links to the intersection near Memorial Drive, then turning left to drive up Jeffcott Street and going through Wellington Square to get to somewhere that they could see from the intersection of Hawker Street and the north-west ring route, they will instead go through Barton Road to Hill Street. Because this is not really about Barton Terrace West: this is about Hill Street.

The vast majority of cars that will use Barton Road, if it is re-opened, will turn right into Hill Street rather than going straight on along Barton Terrace West. It is not really about Barton Terrace West at all, because the institutions that we want to access are Helping Hand, St Laurence's church, Calvary Hospital and Mary Potter Hospice, and the St Dominic's Priory school. That is where my constituents want to go.

It is so typical of the South Australian Liberal Party that they already hold the seat of Adelaide, yet they are willing to look 1,030 people in Colton—a seat they have to win to form government—in the eye and say, 'We don't care what you think about this issue; we're going with our rich mates,' rather than the constituents living in an electorate which the Liberal Party has to win to form a government. I can be very precise about the number. As of yesterday, it was 1,030 people who took the trouble to fill in one of my cards. If you receive one of my cards, you can tick the box that says 'I do not support', and some people have.

The Hon. M.J. Wright: Not many.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: One per cent of them have. In fact, I have some very humorous replies here, which I might read if the committee stage goes on.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Chairman. I appreciate that the member for Croydon likes to bask in the glory of his own self-delusion, but my question—

The CHAIR: You are not helping your point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question was very simple. It was whether the Minister for Transport Services or the Minister for Transport had provided any material in relation to the modelling and data as a result of the road being reopened. I am really at a loss as to what that has to do with the constituency of minister Caica's electorate. Certainly, as to the pathetic number of responses you have—

The CHAIR: Your point of order is under which standing order?

Ms CHAPMAN: —is absolutely irrelevant.

The CHAIR: Is that your point of order? The question has been asked, and now that it has been provided we will move on to the next question. I ask members on my left to note that, if you ask leading questions, you should anticipate leading answers.

Ms SANDERSON: My question is procedural, really. Under schedule 1, clause 1(1) says the act 'immediately before 1 July 2013'. Then in subclause (2), it says that the Adelaide City Council must (1) take steps to comply with the subclause as soon as it is reasonably practicable and in the appropriate time. I am wondering whether they have to have already amended the road and have it open and running by 1 July 2013, or whether that is when the Adelaide City Council starts taking reasonable steps and, if so, how long is reasonable?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is a fair enough question, and the answer is that the legal authority, flimsy as it is, for excluding bicycles and motor vehicles from the bus lane will, if this bill is passed, terminate on 1 July 2013. Subclause (2) is merely saying, 'When it expires, you had just better get on with removing the barricades or any obstacle to the two-way movement of bicycles and motor vehicles through the road.' So it is a common-sense provision.

The CHAIR: Just to clarify: the answer is that the City of Adelaide has to take action after 1 July?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Obviously, it would be far preferable if it took action before 1 July. But should the bill go through the other place this year, the Adelaide City Council would have at least six months to reconfigure the road there if that is necessary. In relation to the impediments to two-way movement, legal authority ceases on 1 July. If the Adelaide City Council takes the whole six months, as soon as practicable, the council must have the road ready for two-way movement.

Ms SANDERSON: Would that not be endangering people? If the estimates in 1999 were that it was a $1 million redevelopment and restructure of that area, that would surely have to take a considerable amount of time of engineering work, road widening and traffic signalling. There would be lots of things to be done. Surely, it would take a lot more than six months. The council would also have to put it into its budget, which has already been done until 30 June 2013, so I think it is pretty unreasonable. How flexible are you on that time frame?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If we were to make a concession on the time frame, the Liberal Party would still be implacably opposed to the bill. There are simply no grounds for compromise here. Six months is more than adequate time for a very, very small stretch of road to be widened to accommodate the two-way movement of private motor vehicles.

I do not particularly care how the Adelaide City Council does it; that is a matter for the Adelaide City Council. All I want to happen is for private motor vehicles and bicycles to have free two-way movement as they did for decades and decades before 1987. It is not that hard, I can assure the member for Adelaide: the Adelaide City Council merely has to go back and look at what was there before it unlawfully ripped it up.

Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 2 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (16:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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