HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2019.)

Mr PICTON: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:12): Oh!

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Not the lead speaker, I'm guessing!

Mr PICTON: The Minister for Education is correct, that I am not the lead speaker on this bill.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PICTON: That is right; the Attorney-General is correct—I will make an excellent contribution. This is an interesting piece of legislation in terms of land acquisition. It is an important area for our parliament to consider. This is an area in which we have significant powers in our state. We have powers that far exceed the commonwealth's powers, in fact, where land can be acquired without just terms. They have to be on just terms at a commonwealth level; we have greater powers than that. This is something we need to consider carefully.

We need to make sure that—the member for West Torrens has left us—where land is acquired, particularly for important projects, people are dealt with sensitively, and I believe we should offer just compensation for people for that land we are acquiring. This has been a subject of particular importance in metropolitan Adelaide through the South Road acquisitions; in particular, we have had the Torrens to Torrens project, the Darlington project, the Northern and Southern expressways and also the Northern Connector project, all of which were started by the previous government.

We are still waiting for the new government's plans. They have said that they are starting on the next project, which was in planning under the previous government, in relation to the Regency to Pym Street project. We are waiting to see the outcome in terms of land acquisition there. Particularly, what is going to be very significant is between the River Torrens and Darlington where a significant number of properties will have to be acquired. They will have to be acquired under any of the options that are being considered by the government at the moment, even including tunnelling.

We have already seen an outpouring of support from the community in relation to some of those properties, most notably in regard to Thebarton Theatre. We were talking about petitions before and a significant petition has been circulated online to save Thebarton Theatre. Of course, the Premier himself has said that he was going to save Thebarton Theatre, but that seems to have gone out the window now. We need to make sure that that theatre is saved. I hope that it is saved.

I hope that this government can make sure in its planning groups that we save Thebarton Theatre because our heritage is important. That is a landmark venue for live music and other events in Adelaide, and it needs to be saved. No matter what the case, we have literally thousands of properties between the River Torrens and Darlington where acquisition will need to take place, and that needs to be done with sensitivity. People in those areas need to receive accurate information in a very timely manner. They need to receive appropriate compensation for acquisitions that happen. It is obviously going to be devastating for some people.

The member for West Torrens himself—and I am sure when he comes here, he will make this in his contribution—has previously spoken about how this will affect his electorate. People in his electorate will come to him to plead, 'Can you save my property?' He will have to say, 'Well, I cannot because there is this greater good on behalf of the whole state.' Ultimately, that is why we have these significant powers to make sure they benefit the whole state.

I know it is also impacting upon my electorate. Another one of the projects that was budgeted under the previous government—and I hope we will see it start soon, even though there is yet to be any sign of it so far—is the Main South Road extension and duplication project between Seaford Road and Sellicks Beach. The government has only budgeted it to Aldinga, even though we had previously committed to Sellicks, and they in fact previously committed to Sellicks as well. In relation to that, there are particular properties all along that journey that will need to be acquired, but the government has not yet made clear to those residents and those property holders where the route is likely to be and, therefore, there are people in that zone who are significantly questioning what the situation is going to be for their properties.

I was speaking to a family recently at Seaford Rise who have a property that backs onto the land adjacent to Main South Road. They are in a difficult situation. One of the family's breadwinners has a significant illness and disability that has led them to be unable to work. They have had to reduce their income, therefore, and they are very concerned. They obviously have a mortgage, as per most people in South Australia, where they owe a significant amount to the bank. So, even if they were going to be paid out under this scheme, a significant amount of the income that they would receive in response would go back to the bank.

They are concerned that, due to their reduced income, they would be unable to get a loan to buy another property. They have a number of children. They have particular needs. They are worried that, if they had to move to a much smaller house, their family would suffer greatly. I raised this and wrote on their behalf to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government and received a very brief, stock standard response. It seems that there is no end in sight for the anxiety for that family as to whether the alignment of the duplication is going to be on the western side, which would affect them, or on the eastern side, which would not affect them. That is a very simple question that they need answered for the betterment of their situation.

I hope that the minister will speed this up a bit, because this has been going for some time now and there has been no communication to any of those property holders. They need indication now. Despite all the interesting things, I am sure, that are part of this legislation, the government need to make sure that, when they are dealing with land acquisitions, they are open and honest with people and they make this clear as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I hope that the minister takes this issue seriously. I hope that in relation to the north-south road we protect some of our particular landmarks, such as Thebarton Theatre. I hope that in relation to Main South Road in my electorate we see some proper consultation and communication with people in those affected areas about how it is likely to impact them, because it has been completely negligent to date. People are anxious and people are worried. They need clarity and the government could very easily give them that if it wished to.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:20): I rise to support the Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019. For the record—I will talk about it more in depth later—part of my remarks will be commenting on my family having had land compulsorily acquired three times since, and including, 1939. I will talk more about that later.

The Land Acquisition Act 1969 establishes a process for the acquisition of land by acquiring authorities. Land is generally acquired to accommodate various road and infrastructure projects. For example, the Torrens to Torrens upgrade and the Northern Connector are recent significant infrastructure projects that have required the acquisition of land by government.

Operationally, the land acquisition process is overseen by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI). DPTI liaise with landowners to follow the process under the act to acquire the land and negotiate compensation for the landowner and other claimants holding interests in the land. DPTI undertake this work as part of their delivery of infrastructure projects with the Crown Solicitor's Office, preparing legal documents and representing the government. The act itself is committed to the Attorney-General.

The bill has been drafted to implement recommendations made by the 2017 parliamentary select committee, which examined the compulsory acquisition processes for properties acquired for the Torrens to Torrens project. The select committee identified a number of areas where improvements could be made to the act to improve the process and outcomes for the department, landowners and other parties with interests in the land. The bill also introduces amendments proposed by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Crown Solicitor's Office to remedy issues that frequently arise during land acquisitions and to clarify uncertainties in the law relating to underground acquisitions.

The select committee made a number of recommendations for legislative amendment, including a solatium payment of up to 10 per cent of market value of the land to owner-occupiers (primary residence), to compensate for having to find, purchase and move into a new home. Currently, non-financial loss is not compensable. The inclusion of a solatium payment will increase the amount of compensation landowners will be entitled to. It is expected that the payment will also lead to a quicker resolution of claims and reduce legal fees for both parties.

Another recommendation is to require both the landholder and DPTI to act in good faith throughout the acquisition process. Another recommendation is to allow an allowance of $10,000 payable in advance for professional costs relating to the acquisition, such as legal fees or valuation costs to assist landowners.

Another recommendation involves requiring a compulsory settlement conference before compensation proceedings can be commenced. The cost of the conference will be paid by the department. It is expected that this will lead to the faster resolution of compensation claims and also reduce legal fees for both parties. Other amendments recommended by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Crown Solicitor's Office include legislating an existing DPTI policy that stamp duty, lands titles office fees and transfer fees associated with buying a new residential property will be paid by DPTI. Stamp duty will also be payable to owners of investment properties where certain conditions are met.

Another amendment recommended is the introduction of a valuers' conference to allow the valuers for the landowner and DPTI to discuss factual issues in their valuations early in the compensation negotiations. There is also an amendment to require that compensation that is paid into the Supreme Court must be withdrawn within 24 months. There is also another amendment recommended allowing an offer of compensation to be varied up or down. If DPTI wish to vary an offer downwards, they will need a court order.

A further recommended amendment is changes to the way that DPTI determine not to be paid by claimants if they remain on the land after the exploration of the three-month grace period. The rent must not exceed acceptable market rate for the property. It is expected this will decrease disputes over rent amounts. Amendments to improve the compensation negotiation process between the parties and various administrative and legal costs are also recommended.

In relation to underground acquisitions, the act will be amended to provide that compensation will not be payable for underground acquisitions, as landowners will not lose the use or enjoyment of their land. This brings South Australia into line with the position in New South Wales and Western Australia, and I note that Victoria are still looking at this position. It is important that this position is clarified prior to work commencing on any future tunnels that may be required as part of the north-south corridor works.

Compulsory acquisition—or land acquisition, but compulsory acquisition is what we are talking about here—is a very blunt instrument. It is about governments being able to acquire property, whether it is federal or state governments, I suppose you could say for the greater good. Certainly, there will be disputes over whether it is for the greater good and landholders affected can ask, 'Why is this happening?' but, at the end of the day, even if you own freehold property, it can be compulsorily acquired.

Just for the sake of history, I want to lay on the table the incidents where my family have been affected by compulsory acquisitions. In 1939, my grandfather—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: That is serious stuff, Tom, especially for the defence of this nation. Leonard Pederick had land acquired at Angle Vale for the weapons dumps, and you can still see where they are today, surrounded by the bunkers—good Pederick country. That happened in 1939, and then in 1950, as part of Edinburgh air base, further—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK: Not much now! The member for West Torrens interjects to ask how much land we owned. Back in the day, I think it was about 180-acre farms, but they were spread around a bit around Gawler River, Angle Vale, Edinburgh airfield, Penfield and Smithfield and those areas. Certainly, as part of the Edinburgh air base, some more land was accessed in 1950. In the end, my grandfather and grandmother and my father all had to move into the town, at Gawler, because they had lost their home. They still had land in the region and were sharefarming country at One Tree Hill for a while.

In 1961, dad came down to Coomandook, and our property is dissected by the Dukes Highway to Melbourne and obviously, also, the Melbourne-Adelaide railway line. We have 100 acres or 40 hectares over the road, as we say. It has always been interesting farming that. Back in the seventies, as kids, we helped run cattle across the road. We would not bother trying that now.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, perhaps we need an underpass. Certainly, we have taken stock across there, and we have lost good sheepdogs because of people not taking heed.

In the early seventies—and I remember this quite starkly as a young bloke on the farm—the government decided to move the alignment of the Dukes Highway. This was probably the lesser of two evils. I still know where the survey marks are where they were talking about putting the bypass around Coomandook. Instead of going 250 or 300 metres further north, they were going to put a four-lane road between our house and shearing shed, which is probably a gap of 200 metres or so. Working out the compensation as your property was carved up like that would have been an interesting process.

In the end, the road was realigned and straightened out quite a bit, mainly to get a better alignment, and it was obviously safer, because the Coomandook-Coonalpyn section was always notorious, with a lot of hills and a lot of corners. In the old language, 7½ acres were acquired. After my grandfather and father had land acquired in 1939 and 1950, I think dad thought perhaps he had got past it. To be fair about what happened in the day, I do know that the compensation paid was about 2½ times the value of the land, plus new fencing was installed, some of which survives to this day, but some has been burnt by bushfire and replaced. The main gates into the property were put up then, together with a very good fence. It is a very blunt instrument and, as I said before, just by the nature of the words 'compulsory acquisition' that is what happens.

I note that in the debate over the proposed Wellington weir, which I fought against from day one—and this was under the former Labor government, and the former member for Chaffey was the minister at the time—and from talking to the Withers family at Nalpa Station and the McFarlane family at Wellington Lodge Station, the land was all but compulsorily acquired. They had it made known to them that the government were going to acquire land, and so I must congratulate the landholders on coming to a negotiated outcome.

At the time, I presented to the parliament's Public Works Committee about the roadworks access on both sides: the Wellington East side and the Langhorne Creek side for the Withers family. The roadworks were built, but thankfully the weir never progressed. Possibly, with the spectre of compulsory acquisition—and I guess that is what it was—the parties confidentially agreed to a settlement.

We have seen this happen over time, and we saw the MATS plan 50-odd years ago. If that were in place, it would have saved a lot of compensatory money and a lot of pain, so we are treading over old ground. In the scheme of things, as long as things are done in a practical manner and for the greater good, I would like to think that any government of any colour would not take lightly any sort of acquisition because it is a serious process.

It is not just about land acquisition; it is about projects that impact on businesses next to projects and access for goods, customers or clients. It can be difficult and it is a difficult process, more so in the urban setting, where you have a heavy built environment and you are impacting on it, whether it is roadworks, whether it is pipework, or maybe even putting in new power infrastructure.

It certainly is a blunt tool and a spectre over home owners of their quarter-acre block or whatever size block. I noted before the comments from the member for West Torrens about people who face what turns out to be fact: that no matter what is happening, their land has to be acquired for that certain project. It is tough. My father and grandfather obviously were not pleased about losing their home, but it was all for the greater good, that is, both for federal defence projects. Obviously, the acquisition at the farm at Coomandook, where I live, did not impact us like that, but 7½ acres, or three hectares, of land was acquired for that project.

In the scheme of things, with some projects, negotiations can be done. If I compare what happened to the proposed works with the proposed Wellington weir, that did get to that. I can understand why people might say, 'No, we are not going.' Probably from pretty close to the start of the discussions, it becomes a compulsory acquisition process. That is why, when looking at parts of the South Road upgrade and the north-south connector, you have to look at all the options. Is it easier or cheaper? Does the engineering fit to go underneath? Do you compulsorily acquire the properties?

Sometimes, people will look at it as an opportunity because they can see what could happen in several years' time and think, 'We will buy this property and it will be compulsorily acquired,' and then do that. I guess you could say that some people play the market, but I am sure that is sorted out in the discussions and the negotiations.

In the scheme of things, it is something that will need to be done by all governments over time in the name of progress. If you want a good state, a good country and a growing population, you have to be able to service those needs. You only have to look at some of the infrastructure in more populous states, where there are double-stack roads crisscrossing the centre of cities and more public transport options, such as train services. A lot of that, and the infrastructure around it, is driven simply by the population base that helps fund it. We obviously have a low population of something like 1.7 million, so to get these projects in place can be difficult at times, working in hand with the federal government.

I would like to think that, with the improvements in this legislation, we can make it easier for all parties, including the government, in regard to land acquisition. Even though it can be a very painful process, if there are guidelines in place that set out the procedures and, essentially, guidelines so that people at least know the points they can work through—whether it is the conference, whether it is if they are losing their home, what other compensation can be paid in regard to stamp duty when buying another property, etc.—they can help ease some of the pain.

But it does not take away the fact that people may have been living in that house for 30 or 50 years. Who knows—they might have had generational change in that house for 80 to 100 years. That is progress, but we also need governments and negotiators to be mindful. I am sure they are. I am sure there are good people involved in these negotiations, which are not negotiations in the end because they are compulsory.

If we can make it as comfortable as it can be, there will be a better outcome for all. Everyone, whether the government working on the project or landholders seeking as fair an outcome as they can get, will come out of it a lot happier than perhaps they might have been. I commend the legislation and look for its speedy passage through the house and the parliament. Let's hope that, in regard to compulsory acquisition, we have better outcomes for all into the future.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:40): I can notify the parliament that I am the opposition lead spokesperson on this matter. The opposition is not ready to debate this, but I understand that the government is and will be proceeding with this, so the opposition will have to ascertain its position between the houses. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to this. It was no-one's fault in particular. I am not assigning blame, but the opposition has not had a chance to consult with stakeholders or to fully brief the shadow cabinet or the caucus on this matter.

Interestingly, the government is opening an act that gives the executive tremendous powers. The power to acquire a home that is not for sale by 'negotiation' is an interesting feat. The government needs to protect taxpayers, that is, offer fair recompense. I was not aware of this, but I was advised yesterday that, in the objects of the act, the act is to provide for the acquisition of land on just terms.

That is a constitutional provision for the commonwealth to conduct its land acquisitions, which no doubt has led to the national partnership around the country where states acquire land for roadworks and the commonwealth simply funds them. I am sure that no government ever intentionally acquires land where it is not on just terms. When something is not for sale and you are being told the value, it is very difficult to believe that it is on just terms, but progress is progress.

My understanding from the briefings that I have received from the government is that there is a new requirement for both parties to negotiate in good faith. The government is imposing upon people whose land is being acquired that their lawyers must act in good faith in these negotiations, which is an interesting concept. It introduces a new provision for a larger amount of recompense payable to an owner of a principal place of residence of $50,000 or 10 per cent of the value, whichever is larger, above market value for that home.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Lesser.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Whichever is lesser.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Whichever is lesser, is it? Okay. It extends the time allowed for a right of review by SACAT, from 14 to 21 days, and it introduces a new ability for the authority to settle sooner. Importantly, it gives the state the ability to compulsorily acquire land without compensation. This is new. No-one denies that the parliament has the right to do that. The parliament is sovereign. We do have the right to acquire land without compensation. Whatever the parliament says, it is. What the minister and the Attorney are asking us to accept is that the state can now acquire someone's property without recompense.

I do not necessarily disagree with that because I think the question becomes: what use is that land to the landowner? If it is a tunnel 18, 20 or 25 metres below their land, do they have a use for it? But make no mistake—if this legislation passes, this parliament is taking away people's property and we are also saying that they will not compensate them for it.

It is interesting that it is a Liberal government doing this. It is interesting that we are debating this, although without saying that it is controversial, the truth is that these measures—and I am still checking on this—are the norm in some other jurisdictions where tunnelling is a lot more prevalent than it is here in South Australia, so I understand the need for it. Indeed, I do not doubt the intentions of the bill. It seeks to give the government the ability to tunnel. I assume that the problem we are trying to solve here through this legislation is the north-south corridor.

The government has announced it is doing a feasibility study on tunnelling for the remaining sections of the north-south corridor. Obviously, that tunnelling will require land acquisitions for entry and ventilation. Importantly, land beneath freehold titled property will be taken away from a landowner and put on their title without compensation. I do not know what the market will think of this.

I do not know what it will mean for the market value of a home that has a north-south corridor underneath it or what the impact of that will be. I assume that, like any alteration to any title at the point of sale, legislation will require that to be known. I assume that there will be some form of easement or marking on the title so that prospective buyers or lenders will know that the north-south corridor or a government tunnel is running underneath that property, whether it is 18 metres, 20 metres, or whatever the engineers decide.

But I ask parliamentarians to contemplate this: in the real world of the real estate market, whether it is commercial or private, I suspect that a tunnel under your property will have an impact on the value of that home, justified or not. I suppose the question then becomes: would you buy a home that was situated above the largest freight corridor in South Australia, even if it is a tunnel? Some people might say they have no problem with it, but the question then becomes: should the government compensate or realise a loss in value? The government says no.

The government says there is no impact, therefore we are taking the land without redress to the owner, much like we have done in other acts, such as the mineral resources act. Members opposite wholeheartedly support access to land for mineral rights and I thank them for that, but this is something new in South Australia because I think this will be the first time in this parliament's history that we are proposing to take compulsorily acquired land without compensating the owner.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Attorney scoffs and laughs. I think it is. I would love to know if there is another example of it.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is called to order for interjecting out of his seat.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I stand to be corrected by my learned junior, the Attorney-General. I do not know what crossbenchers in this parliament think of this legislation or what the other place will consider of this legislation. I will be contacting what I believe are the appropriate stakeholders, the Property Council, REISA, UDIA, Business SA, the appropriate tenants' associations across South Australia, residential tenancies associated that are impacted and, importantly, my constituents, because I suspect my constituents will be the first people impacted by this new legislation when they receive the lovely letter from the Minister for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure saying, 'We are building the north-south corridor under your 1909 heritage villa in Mile End or Torrensville or Thebarton.' Then, as we move closer to Richmond and other suburbs, a lovely letter will be sent out to those people as well.

I do understand that there are some iconic buildings whose future is at risk, and we have had not very much from the government in terms of their future. The first one is the Queen of Angels Catholic Church on South Road, one of the most beautiful buildings in the western suburbs. It is an iconic building, beloved not just by the Catholics of the western suburbs but indeed, I think, by all western suburbs residents, atheists or otherwise. It is a beautiful, architectural marvel, and as people drive along the north-south corridor they see the Queen of Angels. It is a beautiful landmark in the western suburbs and I would like to see it protected.

I hope that this measure of the government goes some way to protecting that beautiful landmark. I have to say that the interest in protecting that landmark is not just local; it has been statewide. A number of people have contacted me asking how to volunteer to help to save the Queen of Angels, and it is very difficult. I do not say for a moment that the minister is happy to knock down these beautiful buildings, but he has a job to do to deliver the north-south corridor. He has done a pretty poor effort so far by not beginning the Pym to Regency as quickly as we would have liked and his record on Darlington is abysmal, but let's hope he does a lot better with the next section.

The other building that is potentially impacted or saved by this measure is, of course, the Thebarton town hall, otherwise known as the Thebarton Theatre. The Thebarton Theatre is an iconic South Australian landmark. It is important for the arts, it is important for live music, it is important for the economy of the western suburbs and it is an important historical and integral part of the fabric of the western suburbs. The idea that the Thebbie could be bulldozed or knocked down is abhorrent, I think, to almost everyone in this parliament and the people of South Australia.

Importantly, the Premier himself publicly said that the Thebbie should be saved, yet unfortunately we have not had those reassuring words from the minister. We have not heard the minister say that the Thebbie will be saved; hopefully, in his remarks he can once and for all rule out the Thebarton Theatre being demolished because it would be a tragedy to lose that heritage. It can never be brought back and rebuilding another theatre will not be the same. The acoustics will be different. It is not the same. The blood, sweat and tears in that building has an impact. The smell is also very important, too.

Theatres are more than just the music that is there. I remember when the Apollo Stadium in Richmond was demolished for a land development. It was a tragedy because that is where Cold Chisel played their Last Stand. I remember as a young boy riding my BMX bike there and standing out the front listening to Cold Chisel's Last Stand, and my father searching for me, not knowing where I was. Once these iconic buildings are gone, they are gone forever.

Then, of course, as we move down South Road, there are a number of heritage buildings and businesses gravely concerned about what is coming next. I think a large number of people in the western suburbs are hoping that a tunnel option can be pursued by the government. The questions I will have about tunnelling are about access and egress, in and out, for tunnels, especially for those roads that are perpendicular to the north-south corridor, such as Henley Beach Road, Sir Donald Bradman Drive and, of course, Richmond Road.

Sir Donald Bradman Drive, Richmond Road and Henley Beach Road are all connected to one very important economic asset in this state, and that is Adelaide Airport. Adelaide Airport is the lifeblood of our economy in this state—one of the important arteries we have for our exports and for the tourism industry—and it employs a lot of people. So it is very important that it maintains its access to the north-south corridor. If we are to have tunnelling along the north-south corridor, then ultimately there will need to be some sort of entry into the tunnel from either all three or at least a minimum of one of these roads. How will that work? What impact would that have on the Thebarton Theatre?

There are schools on the north-south corridor, such as Richmond Primary School. Those parents need to plan. Those parents need to think about what happens: is that school going to be relocated, closed, or amalgamated with another school? I think parents deserve to know, if there is to be tunnelling, what impact it would have on that school. Obviously, with tunnelling comes higher risks but, of course, lots of advantages. By and large, this legislation just deals with the legality of getting access to the land and improving for the government some of the measures to compulsorily acquire land.

As I said, the government is asking us to contemplate compulsory acquisition without compensation and I think that is the first time that has occurred in South Australia. I am not saying it is without merit; I am just saying that is the principle the government is asking us to accept. That is difficult because if you are acquiring, as the act says, on just terms, is it just to acquire land beneath a property and place that acquisition—or right of access or whatever the legal terminology is—on the title of that land without compensation? It will be interesting to hear what we discover in committee on this.

The minister is to be congratulated on contemplating tunnels. I think tunnelling in South Australia is something that we have not embraced as much as other jurisdictions have, and there have been some benefits in other jurisdictions from tunnelling. Obviously, in two of the largest cities in the world, London and New York, tunnelling is a very important part of keeping those cities moving, with the Tube and the Subway. In New South Wales, tunnelling is quite common for motorways, and I think even in some parts of Victoria. Tunnelling for large freight corridors is not something that this state should fear: it is something that the state should welcome and I applaud the government in contemplating how that is dealt with. I just hope that we maintain the principles of just terms outlined in the act.

The contrary argument here is: what denial of enjoyment of land is there for people from a tunnel that is 18, 20, 25 metres below their property? The honest answer to that is nothing. The answer that I do not think anyone in this parliament can answer us is: will that have an impact on value? The alignment of the north-south corridor is not a straight line; there are bends and turns in it. There are currently people who are not on a freight corridor who may now be above a freight corridor and that will change the dynamics of value. There may be examples in New South Wales which the minister can provide us, which we will check, to see whether or not there has been any deterioration in values or change in perceptions about markets and what the impact is. That is an interesting concept.

The good faith requirements that the government is imposing on both parties here are interesting. I have to say that, on an initial glance, I think that is probably an appropriate move, but the point to remember is that we—that is, the government—are acquiring land that is not for sale. The owner of the land has not contemplated selling and it is being taken from them for a use that is not to their direct benefit.

So why should those parties negotiate in good faith? The government has made a very good argument that all lawyers should negotiate in good faith and that there are some people taking advantage of this system to avoid some taxation measures, to avoid some welfare measures to benefit themselves above and beyond other people. I think a lot of those provisions make sense but, again, I get back to the principle which is this: why should the state that is using the power of this parliament to take away someone's land without compensation then impose on that person a requirement to act in good faith?

I suppose that is the principle we will have to contemplate between the houses: whether or not that is an appropriate use of the parliament's power. But we are the minority. We do not have the majority of either house in this parliament, so we are just one voice in this debate. I will be interested to hear the minister's views on the requirement of good faith, and I am sure they are very practical and reasonable: there are some people who just do not settle, there are some lawyers who take advantage of this and there are moneys accruing interest without contributing to the tax burden that anyone else otherwise would, and that of course means testing and other welfare purposes are not taken into consideration.

That makes complete sense but, again, the state is imposing a requirement on a group of people who own land, who did not want to sell it and are being forced to sell it, and a cohort of those people are not getting anything for it. That is the principle we have to consider. The government was very kind in offering me the explanation of clauses. It was very generous, I thought, of the Attorney's office to give them—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: They are tabled in parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, you have refused in the past.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It's actually tabled in parliament.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, and the Attorney-General has refused in the past to table the explanation of clauses.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It gets tabled in every bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, I will provide the Hansard to the Attorney-General where she denied that to the parliament in debating a bill. Yes, so it was very generous of her staff to provide this and I thank them for it. Without boring the parliament, the explanation of clauses states:

5—Amendment of section 7—Application

This clause puts beyond doubt that a special Act that authorises the compulsory acquisition of land will be taken to authorise the acquisition of underground land.

The advice that we received from the government was that technically landowners own everything below their title. I found that to be a very interesting concept. The government is having to come in here and say, 'Well, actually, you do, and we recognise that, but we are creating this special provision in the act to acquire that land under a process and take it from you.' I think that is an interesting development. It then states:

6—Amendment of section 10—Notice of intention to acquire land

This clause removes the requirement that notice of amendment be served in the same way as the notice of intention to acquire the land. It also clarifies that a notice of amendment does not constitute a new notice of intention to acquire land for the purposes of the Act.

Could I ask the Attorney-General if, in committee, she can give us an explanation of clause 6, the amendment of section 10. She has taken note of that for me. Again, in part 2, clause 7, the explanation of clauses states:

Insertion of section 10A

This clause imposes an obligation on an owner of land who is given a notice of intention to acquire land to notify the Authority of any other person who, to the owner's knowledge, has an interest in the land to which the notice of intention to acquire land relates, and the nature of that interest.

I am interested in that because I assumed that it was already the requirement that, if you are compulsorily acquiring the land, you would notify everyone with an interest in that land, or is this only for land that is underground? I would be interested in an answer to that from the Attorney-General. I am putting out my questions so she has notice.

There are a couple of points on the right of review to SACAT. I understand that SACAT was already in the bill. Why is SACAT the appropriate body for this and why the need for the increase to 21 days? Did the government receive any advice that 14 days was not sufficient, and how did it come to 21 days? I think acquisition by agreement is probably a good move by the government. The clause removes the requirement that a notice of decision not to proceed with acquisition be served in the same way as a notice of intention to acquire the land. Can the Attorney expand on that for me, because I did not ask the appropriate questions in the briefing? I am just being honest.

Clause 10—Amendment of section 16—Notice of acquisition: this clause changes the time period after which the authority may publish a notice of acquisition in relation to land from three months after the last occasion on which notice of intention to acquire land was given to three months after the first occasion on which any notice of intention to acquire land was given. What does the government mean by 'any notice'? Is that a press release? Is that a government video or a photograph on a website? What does 'any notice' mean? I assume it does not mean that. I assume it means some sort of formal notice. If the Attorney-General could look into that for me, that would be important.

In regard to the amendment of section 22B—Entitlement to compensation, clause 12 amends this section to provide that only persons with an interest in land that is capable of alienation are entitled to compensation. This requirement has not been extended to an interest consisting of native title. When we are in the committee stage on this section, could the Attorney answer this for me: I did not think the state could extinguish native title. I am not sure if I have misread that. I do not understand the explanation. I am sure there is a simple explanation for it. Also, what does the government mean by 'alienation'? Is there a legal definition of 'alienation'? Is that because tunnelling is not alienation of their land and therefore not open to compensation or is there some other reason that terminology is being used?

Negotiation of compensation is always a very unique concept by a government that has the sovereign power to acquire land and to decide how much they will pay. What is the government definition of 'negotiation'? In negotiation in ordinary sales there is a willing participant to sell their property and there are willing participants wishing to purchase the property and negotiation can happen in different ways: an auction, a private contract or whatever it might be. In regard to negotiation of compensation, are we just talking about the good faith provisions or are we talking about other provisions, like sentimental objects that are within a property?

In 2013-14, when I was transport and infrastructure minister and we began the process of compulsorily acquiring land, people wanted to negotiate about individual aspects of their home, like architraves that had markings from children growing up, or a fireplace that they wanted removed or that they had just laid, or some other nostalgic or important mementos from that home. I am assuming that is what it means. I do not know, so I would like more explanation on that.

Clause 14 amends section 23A to allow the authority to not make an offer of compensation when it gives notice of the acquisition of land in certain circumstances, that is, if the authority is of the view that the amount of compensation is unable to be determined, or in any other circumstances prescribed by regulations. Firstly, what process does the authority go through to make that assessment? Is it codified in legislation, is it done by regulation, or is there a process that the authority would adhere to? I am assuming that the object of the act's just terms is the guiding principle here if we want to make sure that that occurs.

It goes on to say, in the same explanation, that the authority is also given an ability to vary an offer of compensation in this clause. The authority may increase the offer by notice to the person who received the original offer, so you get an offer and the authority can vary it. The question then becomes: why has the authority not made the best offer initially? Is it that, from the information that it receives, the authority is allowed to change it? Alternatively, it provides:

…if after making the [original] offer the Authority becomes aware of information that negatively affects the value of the…land…

Why would an authority care about the condition of the land if it is going to bulldoze it to build a road on it? If you have not maintained your garden or the house has cracks—I am assuming this is asbestos, or it is—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Contamination.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Contamination. Given that it is a road, though, we are not going to be—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My understanding of those, being our rules, is that we cover it up.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay. It is interesting to see that the state wants to transfer those costs to the landowner rather than to the state.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, it is your amendment, not mine.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: There is another rule that says that, Tom.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I want to—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will cease interjecting, and the member for West Torrens will continue with his contribution.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am just trying to ask questions, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opportunity to ask questions will be—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for your protection, sir; it is overwhelming.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is my pleasure, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is overwhelming. I am interested in knowing why the state would want to lower their offer if there is information that negatively affects the value of the land and why the authority may apply to a court for an order for the offer to be decreased. I am interested in knowing, if the authority, which is the state, applies for a court order for the value to be decreased, whether the state will fund the action to defend that, as opposed to the state funding the legal advice, or a works or the opinion of a lawyer on the value or the process.

I am interested in whether this is a different amount that is not payable to a landowner to defend themselves or whether fees will be paid for this. Apparently, the clause also provides for the manner in which the difference between the original offer and the offer, as varied, will be paid back to the authority or the claimant; that is, will the state charge interest?

I am assuming the money has been paid, they have taken it, the titles have been transferred and the state goes to the court and says, 'We found contamination, asbestos'—whatever—'and we want to vary our claim'. Is the state giving itself a right that no-one else has when they buy land? If it is, how does it justify that once the money has been paid and the title has been transferred? No other landowner in the state, from my knowledge, has that right. If you buy land, and it is settled and you discover contamination—the Attorney-General is shaking her head.

I would like to know if that right is available to any other home owner. What is the process? At what point does the state extinguish its right to reduce its payment or its offer? Is it up to the point where the offer is accepted and paid and the title is transferred, or can it be done at a later date? I accept that if the government discovers something, it may want to alter its offer; whether that is fair or not is something we will consider between houses. But at what point does the state extinguish that right, or does it not extinguish that right and maintain it throughout the entire project?

The insertion of sections 23AB and 23AC I think makes a lot of sense. The government is attempting to bring an end to how long this process takes. As I said earlier, the government informed me yesterday that there are people who take advantage of not settling with the government, leaving funds deposited in the Supreme Court accruing interest that are not taxable and that also allow them to gain other benefits, like means testing and otherwise. So that makes sense.

The question I ask the government is: how did they come to six months? Why not 12 months? Why not 24 months? Why is six months the magic number? How long do these disputes usually take? What is the average? Do they take three months, four months, 12 months, three years? Are they ongoing? Have some lasted 10 years? If the government could give us some light on that, that would be very useful.

In terms of a conference, there is the proposed insertion of section 23BA, which provides that upon the application of the claimant a settlement conference must be convened by the authority before the matter is referred to a court. How is that settlement conference constituted? Is there a process for that that I am not aware of? There are requirements that apply in relation to a settlement conference, including the appointment of a conference coordinator. How are they chosen? Are they accredited by someone? I assume that they are. There must be a process already established. If the government could point me towards that, I would be very interested. I note that the conference will be conducted without prejudice, but given the government is paying the bills it is always interesting to know how they are chosen.

I refer to the proposed amendment of section 23C—Reference of matters into court. The clause amends section 23C to provide that a claimant must apply to the authority to convene a settlement conference before referring a matter to court. I would like to understand the justification for this process, because a claimant might not want a settlement conference where there could be directions made. A claimant might wish to go to court directly. Why would we fetter that right? It is their land. Surely the government would have no objection to allowing someone to go directly to court. You are requiring they act in good faith—tick. You are requiring that this be settled within six months—tick. Why not let them go straight to court? What is the problem?

I would like to hear the justification for that, because it feels like—and I am not saying this is accurate—this is a measure that waters down people's rights to take the state on, if they want to. I am not quite sure what the benefit is for the claimant to be compelled to go to a conference first before they can go to a court. I would have thought the state should very rarely limit the ability of anyone to go directly to a court to seek an outcome. My initial reaction to that is that claimants should be able to go to court anytime they feel it is necessary. If you have good faith provisions in there, I think the government is covered, but I am happy to hear the explanation and be convinced otherwise.

In regard to substitution of section 24, again I think this is the government trying to do the right thing. Section 24 of the act is substituted by this clause to change the manner in which the authority can enter into possession of land, or an interest in possession has been acquired under the act in relation to land. The clause removes the requirement for the authority to obtain the agreement of the relevant claimant as to the terms of which it went into possession of the land and provides that the authority may enter possession on a fixed date by the authority no sooner than three months.

I think this clause, from memory, is about letting people move on quickly, which is great, but I would not mind confirmation on this from the Attorney-General in the house and an explanation as to why this is the case. However, it seems to me to be appropriate to allow people to get their settlement earlier, move on, make an offer on another property and off they go.

The insertion of section 25A is the part that I had confused and the Minister for Transport cleared up for me. The clause provides a mechanism by which the authority may increase the amount of compensation payable to a person by 10 per cent of market value of the land, or $50,000, or such other amount as prescribed by regulations. So it is not limited to $10,000 or $50,000 by regulation. Does that mean it can exceed the $50,000? It says 'whichever is the lesser'.

The increase in compensation is available to persons who owned and occupied the acquired land and whose principal place of residence was acquired. The questions I will have for the Attorney-General are: what is the definition of an owner-occupier? Is it someone who is enrolled to vote there? Is it someone who actually lives there? How do you work that out? What is the definition of an owner-occupier? I am sure there is a standard template used. I think the briefing I received yesterday was that is was standard ATO rules.

The question I have is that a lot of these homes are very, very similar and I do not know how the authority will judge who gets the 10 per cent or $50,000 loading and who does not. How do you judge what percentage of that to give? Are these just codified at 10 per cent or $50,000, whichever is smaller, or is there another process you go through, and what is that process? Is it community interest? Is it mental health interest? Is it compassionate grounds? Is it improved works? Is it value? Is it the state of the house? What is it?

I can tell you, as a local member, there are a number of properties side by side that are in very, very different condition. Sure, that changes the value but, again, these properties are not for sale and the state is moving in. I would hate to see people disadvantaged in their communities through this provision, so I would like to know how it is going to be applied. Will it be applied equally to everyone, or is it simply at the will of the authority when and where it is applied? That is, can an owner-occupier not receive this 10 per cent just because the authority deems it not necessary, or is it to apply to every owner-occupier?

I also understand (and I would like some clarity here) that insertion of part 4, divisions 3 and 4, provides a mechanism by which the authority can make a payment of compensation directly to the claimant, where the amount of compensation is under the prescribed amount, rather than paying the amount into court. I assume this means two types of payments: one for the value of the home, the market value the government has deemed fit for compulsory acquisition, where the compensation goes directly to the claimant. Earlier provisions decide, try to identify, who all the claimants are. Do they each get a percentage of this? What is the thinking of the government paying this compensation directly to people rather than through lodging it in the court? Is that to improve the ability of the government to negotiate for a quicker settlement?

Without starting conspiracy theories, I assume the government wants to say, 'We've deposited X hundred thousand dollars into the Supreme Court account, there it is, that's what your house is worth. If you accept it, here is $45,000 in compensation as well.' If that is what the government is attempting to do, I do not think that is an appropriate use of this type of power from the parliament. If compensation is payable, it should be paid. It should not be used to try to force a quick or fast settlement. I would be interested to hear from the government how this will work in practice.

I do not think it is appropriate that we should be using these mechanisms by the state. The state should be a model litigant and a model participant in these, and I am sure the government wants to be, and the state should not try to use compensation or this extra payment as an incentive to try to settle faster, given that you are imposing good faith conditions on them already, given that you are limiting the time they have to settle and move on, so let's make sure that we are not using this as another weight stacked in favour of the government against landowners. I would be happy to hear the explanation there while we consider our position between the houses.

Now we get to the rubber on the road: part 4A. Insertion of 4A relates to the acquisition of underground land. Much of the act 'disapplies' to the acquisition of underground land ('disapply'—never heard that term before) and as such section 26F provides for the way in which underground land is to be acquired. The authority may acquire the land by publishing a notice of acquisition in the Gazette at any time and must thereafter, as soon as reasonably practicable, give notice to the person who is the owner of the land. The land is not entitled to compensation for the acquisition of underground land for this part.

This is the part the opposition will have to contemplate. The government is saying that the alienation of this land is of no consequence to the landowner; therefore, no compensation should be payable. Questions I have for the government on this measure are: how do you know that; how have you determined that; what does the Real Estate Institute and other bodies involved in the property market have to say about that; and, if the government has evidence put before it that actually it will have a detrimental impact on values, should compensation of a form be paid?

I am not advocating for that—I am just asking the question because, if there is going to be some sort of deterioration of value, perhaps the government should consider that. I will be interested to hear the arguments from the minister about whether or not there is any alienation or loss in value. My instincts are probably not in the long term, but very certainly in the short term I think that people will perhaps feel a sense of, 'Well, this has had an impact on the value of my home.'

I think it is an important debate that we need to have as a community if we are going to embark on this. If this is a tunnel, it will be the largest tunnel South Australia has built and the most expensive and, if we are going to build it under people's homes, are we affecting their homes' value? Therefore, why are we not compensating? These are the questions the government should answer to the parliament and to the people, and I look forward to the minister's remarks on that. It will certainly inform what we do between the houses.

Again, I go back to first principles. I think tunnelling is a good idea and I congratulate the minister on proposing tunnelling. The north-south corridor is a bipartisan project. We have our differences about how it is being conducted and the timing of it—fine—but I think tunnelling makes a lot of sense. Again, to get back to the same point without repeating myself, if we are going under people's houses who are not on the north-south corridor now, who are not impacted by South Road now, what does that mean for the value of their homes? Maybe nothing, maybe lots. What does it do to a suburb where there is no road and a tunnel underneath, then massive ventilation shafts coming up out of the ground? What does that mean for the value and amenity of that suburb? It is new and we need to think about that.

The other process I would like to ask the minister about in committee—and I assume this bill will be assigned to the Attorney-General, rather than the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Yes, it is.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is. I also would be interested to know who does the acquisition? If the Attorney-General is the authority doing the acquisition, is the land then vested in the ownership of the minister or another body? Once the land is acquired for tunnelling purposes and access, I am assuming that there is no requirement to include any further amendments for access and operation underground. That is, can tunnelling be done 24/7, as opposed to any other works? What will be the impact on residents above if there is ongoing tunnelling being done at night and during the day? Maybe nothing, and they will not even know it is happening, or will there be a known impact? These are the questions I want to flesh out, if I can, in committee.

More importantly, I know that the government has offered another briefing to the member for Badcoe later this afternoon. I think after we get through the committee stage and the third reading here, the opposition will take the time between houses to get some consultation and then ask the government again for a further briefing to answer some of the questions we raise.

By and large, the opposition is happy for this to pass the house in a speedy and timely manner but, between the houses, we reserve our right to move amendments in the other place or even oppose the bill. By and large, I am supportive of what the government is doing, but I have not had the opportunity to consult my caucus and shadow cabinet colleagues on this matter and there are further questions that we would like to ask between the houses.

I hope that the members on the backbench might be thinking to themselves as well about this idea of the government imposing conditions on people having their homes compulsorily acquired to act a certain way, and then having other rights taken away from them about when and where they go to court to object to what the government is doing. I think we should just consider these principles rather than think about the mechanism.

I will not commend the bill to the house. There will be questions in committee. We will not move any amendments in the House of Assembly, but we are going to consult. I would like agreement by the government to be open-minded to some of the questions and concerns that we have just to get a better understanding, because I think this is about getting this one right. If tunnelling is an option that the state can undertake, it will be something that survives any one government, and it is important that we get the fundamentals of this right now.

This is an opportunity for the government to act in a bipartisan way. The opposition is certainly offering it. We want to be bipartisan here and make sure that we get a good outcome for the people affected and for the future prosperity of South Australia, because the freight corridor is vitally important to this state.

I accept that the government is attempting to do something new. We are in, but we just want to make sure that we dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ and that we get it right, that we do not just let this be dictated to us by a bureaucracy that is keen to move forward quickly—not that I am accusing them of it. I want to make sure that we have got everything right and that we are being very sensitive and always worrying about people who are impacted by this, because this parliament has extraordinary powers to change people's lives and it is our fundamental duty to make sure that we temper that power and that the people's voice is heard in here.

Thus far I think the government has done the right thing. I have only a few concerns, but I will be interested to hear the remarks of the minister and then the answers of the Attorney-General in committee.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (12:36): I would like to thank the member for West Torrens for his contribution. Some of the questions I can attempt to answer in the broad here, but no doubt the detail will be teased out through committee. Can I say first and foremost that I agree with the member for West Torrens that this is an extraordinary power that the government has, and it is a power that we use out of necessity and a power that we use sparingly with a very rigid set of guidelines. This land acquisition bill is designed not only so that people understand the rules of engagement but essentially to balance that power between an individual and the state.

It is all about trying to balance private property rights and the private good with the public good, and the idea that there are times when public good around infrastructure provision and about making our city work more as a whole and our a state work more as a whole, and making sure that our road traffic network works for everybody, has a public good that overrides that private good or those private property rights. As a government that is fundamentally underpinned by the notion of private property rights, this power is one that does need to be regulated, does need to be well understood and does need to be strict in the way that it is interpreted and the way that it is used.

This is also very much an issue for this government because of the significant infrastructure program that we have on the table. Obviously, we are talking about the north-south corridor, but we also have seven intersection upgrades, two grade separations, as well as a host of other projects around the state: the Horrocks Highway-Victor Harbor Road duplication, the Main South Road duplication, Port Wakefield Road, and the Joy Baluch Bridge. All these projects will require some degree of land acquisition, so making sure that this bill is contemporary and that it can deal with the situations that exist is extremely important, as is making sure that what is a very difficult situation is dealt with with as much respect and as much compassion as can be mustered.

Earlier this year, I was at a community meeting around the Goodwood Road/Springbank Road/Daws Road intersection and talking to landowners who are affected. In fact, I saw the distress on one woman’s face whose house was going to be acquired—not for the house so much, I think the house itself was not the thing that she was tied to, but it was disruption that was going to go on in her life—and it brought home to me in a very real way the fact that what we do here is immense and so respect and compassion need to happen. In fact, by and large, this is what the bill is seeking to achieve: to insert more respect and more compassion into the way that we undertake this very difficult land acquisition process.

To try to answer some of the big questions on the north-south corridor, can I say that we are again looking at tunnelling options. I understand that tunnelling is something that the department and the former government looked at about 10 years ago. Under the venerable Patrick Conlon, whom I have never actually had the opportunity to meet, tunnelling was discarded at that stage because of the technology that was used, the cost-prohibitive nature of it and, potentially, the more mundane or, I suppose, outdated techniques that were being used at that time to undertake tunnelling.

We also have, potentially, a difficult soil profile with more clay soils, so tunnelling does not always stack up for South Australia. We took another look at it, based on some advice that we had got from the industry, basically saying, 'You should have another crack at this.' Certainly, when posed the question, the department's answer was, 'Yes, things have substantially changed. Yes, it is time for us to look at tunnelling.' The new modern technique of using tunnel-boring machines as opposed to a cut and cover technique does create a new opportunity to deliver tunnels at better value for taxpayers' money.

What we are standing up the tunnelling design against is the 2015 reference design that the former government put on the table. That design would have seen a series of overpasses and underpasses: underpasses more at the city end and western suburbs end of the remaining sections of the north-south corridor, with a series of overpasses as you head out towards Edwardstown and the Darlington sections of that corridor. I say categorically that the tunnelling solution will have a far lesser impact upon local residents than the tunnelling solution would.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, the tunnelling solution will have less impact than the reference grade solution would have had. Essentially, the understanding is that, instead of having to go wide and acquire houses all along the corridor, what needs to happen is that you require a maybe larger square pad at the point at which the tunnel entrance and exit come into play, but then once you are underground you essentially do not need to acquire properties along that corridor. As somebody who drives that corridor quite often, I do look up and down at the businesses and the residents who might or might not be affected, depending on the design that is chosen, but also depending on that more finite design process that will happen even after the government chooses its solution.

Can I say that, from a principle-based point of view, tunnelling will impact property values in a less adverse way than the reference grade solution. The best example I can give you of that is the Torrens to Torrens project—a brilliant project, and again bipartisan in its approach, in the sense that both sides of this chamber agree that a continuous north-south corridor is the highest large-scale infrastructure priority for our state.

If you look at that Torrens to Torrens section, it has divided communities. If you talk to the traders on Queen Street, for instance, you understand that their catchment has now been halved because nobody on the other side of South Road can get to them. Businesses along that road saw half their catchment taken away and negative impacts have happened. That is what happens when you deliver the upgrade solution.

In the end, that may be the solution that the government picks because it provides the best value for taxpayers and because it provides the best outcome, but tunnelling, by its very nature, will deliver less adverse impact to property owners—in the broad. There will be very specific differences, depending on where your property is. Are you next to a ventilation stack? Are you at the entrance to where the tunnelling is going to start? But, once you are underground, those properties that would otherwise have been affected if the reference grade solution was to have been taken up will see a far lesser impact.

In fact, there is a school of thought that says that once you put a tunnel underneath—and in this case you take somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 cars off the surface road—you actually could see an increase in property values, and certainly you could see an increase in development along the corridor. I know that the member for Kaurna has raised concerns about the uncertainty for people on Main South Road. There has been uncertainty about what is going to happen on the remaining sections of the north-south corridor for a decade.

What we are hoping, through making a decision about which design to choose, is to give a greater degree of certainty to those people because there has been an underinvestment on that remaining section of the north-south corridor for a long time. As I drive it, I see the difference between other sections of Adelaide and the fact that a lot of people have been holding off on investment decisions based on what the government chooses to do. We are very keen not only to make that decision but to make it early in the process so that we can give certainty over a longer period of time and try to do what we can to elongate the time that people have to be able to react to that decision.

The other thing that I would say is that tunnelling will disrupt those local communities less. There will be disruption where the tunnel entrance is but, once you are underground, all those houses around where the reference grade solution would be at the surface, rather than where we would like to go underground, will potentially have a far lesser impact. In fact, a lot of the property value consequence happens during construction.

These are long construction time frames. Again, these are years and years in the making and years in the delivering, so it is that short-term property value impact from disruption that we also need to bring into account. I think it would be a very easy argument to make that tunnelling will have a better impact for more people in terms of property value and property disruption than will the reference grade solution.

The member asks a question about the government paying compensation in regard to going underground and says that this is a first. This is in no way a first. In fact, for every bit of council-owned land that we acquire we do not pay compensation. It is something that we have had to work together on, with the City of Port Adelaide Enfield, in relation to the Regency Road to Pym Street section but also with other projects that we are undertaking at the moment where, if council is the owner of that land, we acquire that land without consideration. That is a longstanding principle. That is something that the former government did on many an occasion. Again, councils do not get paid compensation for the land.

The only other time we have tunnelled in South Australia is the Heysen Tunnels, and there was nobody that we had to acquire the tunnels from because we owned the land. On this issue of whether or not we can acquire land to tunnel, the Land Acquisition Act is silent. What we need to do is put a positive power in there to be able to clarify that to make sure that, if the government was to decide to go down that tunnelling solution on the north-south corridor, we have the act in place and the powers to be able to do it.

If we take two different scenarios, the first scenario is that we acquire land at the surface. That will happen in the usual way that it happens, but once you are underground, what the government is seeking to own, once you are down to the depth, is the section between 18 and 24 metres below the surface, where the tunnel is. At the moment, somebody owns the land, and they own down to the centre of the earth. However, in order to be able to do something with the dirt that is underground, they would need to dig it up, or dig down, or dig a tunnel down to be able to get to it.

The answer is that, at the moment, if an individual were to seek to do that—I am not sure what for, and if we put mining tenements over to one side—they would need to go through a development approval process to do that. I struggle to think of what somebody really wants with the 18 to 24-metre section below their property because they cannot really get at it. Essentially, that is the bit that the government is trying to own and the bit that the government will be acquiring in the potential tunnelling option for the north-south corridor part. That is the crux of where that is at.

Can I say that, especially in response to the member for Kaurna's questioning, we are trying to engage with landowners at an earlier stage of the process. There is a very rigid process, as is proper under the Land Acquisition Act, that allows the government to go and talk to a landowner about acquisition. Uncertainty can often exist. I appreciate that for the project the government has announced, where we have not gone through enough of a design phase to be able to talk to landowners, there is a degree of uncertainty. You also do not want to go out there and start to talk about what might happen without having the facts in front of you. So there is a delicate balancing act.

As I understand it from the department, we used to work up a 100 per cent design on a project and then go out to land acquisition. In order to try to engage landowners at an earlier stage of the project, we are now seeking from a policy point of view to work the development up to a 30 per cent design, from there make a decision about what land needs to be acquired and then start the ball rolling on that process.

That means that we are able to try to give as much time as possible—and I appreciate the fact that there are statutory time frames in the act—to help work through with people the issues around acquiring their existing property. It also helps, potentially, to make sure that road projects can happen in a more compressed fashion. We can deliver them earlier and essentially give ourselves the ability to get the best outcomes for everybody, for the public taxpayer, to try to deal as early as possible with the issues of disruption, the issues of acquisition of property and the need to have to relocate people—on all those issues.

In terms of this bill, I thank the select committee that was started by the Hon. John Darley in the other place. It was started in 2015, in response to land acquisition on the Torrens to Torrens project, and it was finished in 2017. John has a very keen interest in this area and, as somebody who understands property and land, titles and valuations, he provides invaluable advice. From a legislative standpoint, the government has accepted every single one of the legislative recommendations that the Hon. John Darley's select committee made.

In fact, turning my mind now to some of the provisions in the bill, the need to act in good faith by both parties came from the Hon. John Darley's select committee. The idea that everybody should be working towards a best endeavours process and that we should be looking after people's private property rights as much as we can, but in the area in which the public interest has been balanced as outweighing the private interest and where we then have a project that seeks to acquire someone's property, and that everybody should have to act in good faith, is just a common-sense way that we do things.

For instance, if we were to take away the fact that the government is one party to this land acquisition process and put that out into the private sphere and, say, it is two private individuals or two private parties having to negotiate with each other, the obligation on both sides to operate in good faith would be something that we would consider normal and, again, something that is important to be in here.

The second big change that the Hon. John Darley wanted to talk about was the solatium payment. This is something that exists interstate and something that we have sought to put in here. The solatium payment is about trying to inject some compassion, respect and common sense into the way that payments are made. The government provides a whole series of payments to people if their land is being acquired. We pay for valuations, we pay to help people move—whether that is relocation or whether that is a whole series of other issues—and we also pay for legal costs and all sorts of stuff.

The opportunity here, though, is to be more sensible about it and say that here is an opportunity—rather than us mucking around—to provide a payment earlier in the process, which gives the landowner comfort in that the disruption to their lives is being catered for in a financial sense as much as possible as early as possible. The desire here is very much to show some of that good faith on behalf of the government and, essentially, through what is a difficult process for the landowner, to show a degree of compassion, saying up-front, 'Here is a payment that we can provide. In doing so, we hope to be able to make that process more smooth for the individuals involved.'

There is also a series of measures in the bill which no doubt will get teased out through the committee stage and which are really just about reducing red tape in the process in the sense that, if a decision is made to acquire a property, we will need to work with the landowner through this difficult situation, but we want to be able to do this practically. There are a number of outdated clauses in the act that stymie parties from being able to get on and deliver this. Sometimes that obfuscation is deliberate and sometimes it is accidental.

Regardless, really what we are seeking to do here is make sure that the process is as sensible and common sense as possible. The idea that time frames are reset because a new party is found or the ability to be able to talk to tenants, as distinct from landowners, more sensibly as part of this process—none of it comes out of a desire at all to somehow take away rights from private property owners or the tenants who are involved. It is just about being sensible and practical. A lot of those timing changes really are just about being able to have those conversations at the right time, rather than having to follow a sequential process that is not logically sequential in the first place.

I commend the bill to the house and thank the Attorney for taking this through the parliament. Quite clearly, my department deals with this on a daily basis and has a very keen interest in how this operates. Again, I think that the balance of measures that have been put in place here inject more compassion, more respect and more common sense into the way this process is undertaken and also preserve the government's opportunity to be able to tunnel into the future to deal with an eventuality that had, up until now, not needed to be contemplated. I really do look forward to the parliament agreeing to these measures.

I would say, as the former attorney was often wont to say, from time to time both sides of this chamber will find themselves in government. These measures are really here to make sure that the running of government can be done in a common-sense way and as efficiently as possible, whilst ensuring that we do everything to protect the rights of private owners and also show them compassion in what is otherwise a difficult circumstance.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:56): As the member for Badcoe, and very proudly so, the question of the expansion or upgrade of South Road is an absolutely key concern for me and the constituents of Badcoe. In fact, the very first question I was asked after I formally became the candidate for the seat of Badcoe was about South Road.

There is certainly a high degree of awareness among pretty well all my constituents, considering that South Road runs straight down the middle of the electorate of Badcoe. There is a high degree of awareness and interest and even a fair bit of concern about what the upgrade of South Road is going to mean not only to individual residential property owners and business owners who are already affected by questions that are yet to be answered about the future of South Road but also for community infrastructure.

There are several schools that sit right on the edge of South Road. All the parents of students at those schools frequently ask what is happening with South Road, what it is going to mean for their school and whether their school is even going to exist after the expansion of South Road. Those are all very important things. There are also a number of churches and some historic pubs, which are very important, along South Road. There is a question mark over their future at the moment because there is uncertainty about the alignment of South Road, when work is going to be done and, of course, how it is going to be done.

We have certainly heard quite a few remarks from the government about undergrounding. That raises more questions than answers for a lot of people in Badcoe who rightly want to know if their stretch of road is going to be affected by a tunnel, whether they are going to have their land compulsorily acquired or whether there is going to be some other sort of outcome for them and either their own land or the community assets they have an interest in. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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