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 (resumed on motion).

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (15:49): I seek to continue my remarks, which I began before the lunch break. I was letting the house know about the relevance of this piece of legislation to the constituents of Badcoe. This piece of legislation directly relates to the planned expansion of South Road and, of course, we are well aware that tunnels have been forecast for that project. We do not yet know the alignment of the project or, indeed, where exactly the tunnels will go, but that only adds to the interest from constituents in the seat of Badcoe and in the seat of West Torrens, as well.

My constituents certainly would like to see a tunnel through the whole electorate if they possibly could. We have an excellent area with wonderful suburbs, wonderful public transport and schools and other community facilities, as well as heritage buildings, including the Maid of Auckland Hotel among others. There is a fair degree of concern in my community about any and all of those being disrupted due to the expansion of South Road.

However, residents and business owners in Badcoe are also equally concerned about making sure that we have high-quality public transport, and that includes our road network. Congestion along South Road has certainly been a big topic for many years and there is certainly support in my electorate for the improvement of South Road in whatever way that might be able to be done.

I particularly want to mention the fact that this legislation does raise a lot of questions. I look forward to receiving some answers from the government and advisers in the committee stage, which we will be heading into next. In advance, I thank them for their time. The information they provide is of huge relevance to my constituents and I am sure they will be looking in some detail at what the plans are for South Road and what this particular bill, the Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, actually means to them.

I will just touch on a few issues and key questions that arise from this bill. One issue is the depth to which tunnels will be built and the depth from which underground land will be compulsorily acquired by the government. The bill does not actually outline or specify a minimum depth from which land can be acquired. I think that would and does raise some concerns for residents about the state's possible powers in acquiring land that they might otherwise want to use. For example, people do use the land immediately under their homes for things like cellars, storage spaces, for bore water and may seek to use it for other purposes from time to time.

I am reliably informed that any tunnels that would be built would be, at most, 18 metres below the surface. While I take that on board, it does pose the question of why there is not some sort of limit or some sort of guide on the depth from which the government can compulsorily acquire land under a person's home. A lot of landowners, when they buy their homes, their properties, buy not only the surface of the land but basically also all the way to the core of the earth.

While most residents would not seek to utilise the land 18 metres under their property, they do actually, at this point in time, legally have a right to that land. I think it is worthwhile for them to know what exactly they are giving up and, indeed, for the parliament to know what power we are giving governments to compulsorily acquire land, even if that is underground at some depth.

I mentioned bore water as well. There are certainly a large number of people in the electorate of Badcoe who have access to bore water or, indeed, have had access in the past but maybe do not use that bore water at the moment. There are also a large number of industrial and business landholdings across Badcoe that may also from time to time seek to use bore water. I think that a valid question arises from part 4A of this bill about what would happen in the event that bore water facilities intersect with the space that the government may seek to compulsorily acquire.

I note that in this bill there is no suggestion that compensation will be paid for land underground that is compulsorily acquired, but that raises the question, if there are circumstances in which a person's use of their land is interfered with—for example, utilising bore water—whether compensation might be paid in those circumstances and the process by which that might be established. Would a person simply have to make use of the civil system to recover compensation for that lost right or facility, or is some other mechanism proposed to be able to interact with a landowner to ensure that they are not left worse off than they otherwise may have been before the compulsory acquisition of their underground land?

There is also the question—and I think this will probably be the biggest one that residents and business owners will raise with me—of the effect of underground work, either while that construction work or drilling through the earth is occurring or indeed after a structure has been put there. What effect will that have on their enjoyment of their land? I think it is quite reasonable to ask whether any noise will be heard and whether any vibration will be sensed. Of course, one of the key questions will be the likelihood of any damage being caused by underground construction and what mechanisms will be in place to monitor whether damage is being caused and what compensation might be available to a landowner if damage was caused to their property.

There are a number of businesses in Badcoe that are industrial in nature—manufacturing businesses—that require some precision work. I have no idea at this stage at what depth construction will be conducted and therefore what sort of effect it might have on the work of manufacturers or indeed others who are doing precision work and whether any sort of vibrations might affect them being able to go about their business. Equally, residents may hold the same concerns. I think those are things that I would be seeking to get some information about and also people being advised of what their rights are.

I understand that notification will be given to a landowner that compulsory acquisition will be carried out on the property beneath their land. I think it is only fair that people are advised of what their rights are, and indeed what their obligations are, in terms of monitoring the state of their premises or their land at the time that notification is issued so that if they want to be able to keep a check on whether there has been any adverse effect on their land they can and that they are in a position to take action at some later stage if they contend that damage has been done to their property or their land. I think that raises the question of what the government will do in terms of monitoring or putting in place some sort of facility for baseline data to be collected so there are not problems later on.

This has been an issue in my electorate, in terms of damage caused to residential properties due to work that has been going on nearby. For example, in South Plympton, a number of residents have raised with me, and I in turn have raised with the Minister for Human Services and the Minister for Planning, Housing Trust properties that have been built in the area, which is of course a great investment and one that actually began under the previous Labor government. The construction and work that has been done on the site and is ongoing on that site has caused some residents to believe that their properties have been adversely affected, with cracks appearing in their properties.

These are very difficult to monitor and prove, and that process is ongoing. I think those residents do have a right, in the circumstance where land underneath their homes is compulsorily acquired, to avail themselves of some support from the government—from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure I imagine—so that they can preserve their legal rights should an adverse outcome occur, which I am sure no-one wants to see.

Those are some of the questions that I hope to receive information about so that I might be able to convey the answers to those issues back to people in Badcoe, whether they are home owners or business owners or otherwise operating in the area. I think they have a right to know what these changes are and what the effect of this bill means for them so that they can make decisions about their own landholdings. And, of course, the parliament has a right to know so that we can decide on support for this bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:00): I wish to place on the record my appreciation to all members for their contributions. I note that the opposition has indicated that they will reserve their position for now but will indicate further once the shadow cabinet and caucus have been consulted. To the best of my knowledge, briefings have been made available to those who have requested them.

I understand that the member for Badcoe has raised some matters today, which are not peculiar to issues that may prevail in just her electorate, such as the interruption of an underground area that might traverse a lawful entitlement to access to water via a bore. There are a number of rules that relate to access to water, and I think the Hon. Gail Gago, in her time as minister, undertook regulatory reform to make it more difficult for people to access bores.

This was largely as a result (and this is no reflection on her) of the 10-year drought that South Australia was undergoing at the time, so the opportunity for people to access water via bores has been more limited by virtue of other rules. Nevertheless, they are matters on which advice is still being obtained and, as with any other matters raised, we will ensure that that information is made available between the houses.

I wish to acknowledge the other members who have made a contribution: the member for West Torrens, and I will come back to him in a moment; the member for Kaurna; and also the member for Badcoe, in addition to the usually entertaining contribution by the member for Coomandook—

Mr Pederick: Hammond.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Hammond. Obviously, his ancestors made an enormous contribution to the defence of the country in wartime requirements and, in more recent decades, to having the Dukes Highway traverse their former property in that area.

Mr Pederick: Current.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Current, sorry. Contributions have been made by members and members of their constituency in the examples that have been given. In relation to the general proposals, one matter was raised as to the litigation in these matters. Members may be aware that there is jurisdiction within the Supreme Court to challenge aspects in relation to the Land Acquisition Act. I am advised that there are usually between 10 and 15 cases a year in which applications are made. Many of those settle and there is an agreement reached between the parties, which are frequently the transport department and a relevant party relating to major transport infrastructure.

Sometimes, when judgements are required, they are in favour of the Commissioner of Highways. I am just looking at last year's results. I think there were six judgements, one of which is under appeal, in favour of the Commissioner of Highways and one judgement against the Commissioner of Highways. So litigation is accessible as an available arbiter in relation to these disputes, and it seems as though they are being carried out as we would expect and finalised, unless by agreement, by judgement. They are not all entirely one way.

That is encouraging, and I urge members—particularly the member for West Torrens, who I think features in it—to review the report of the Select Committee on Compulsory Acquisition of Properties for North-South Corridor Upgrade, tabled in the Legislative Council of this parliament on 20 June 2017. What is important is that this was an inquiry conducted between 2015 and 2017, chaired by the Hon. Mr Darley, with other members of the Legislative Council: Messrs Brokenshire, Kandelaars, Ridgway, Stephens and minister Gago, although she may not have been minister at that time; probably not if she was on the committee.

In any event, they made a comprehensive assessment of many of the concerns that were raised largely in relation to the issue surrounding the development of the Main South Road corridor, concerns raised by numerous residents that they had been inadequately advised, if at all, that there was clearly disrespect, in their view, in the discussions and negotiations that were undertaken and that there was a failure to give adequate compensation, in their view, bearing in mind that some of them took the view that their residence particularly was one which they ought not to have to lose at all. There were obviously some who were very emotional about that.

Mr Michael Deegan was the chief executive of DPTI at the time, and the former member for Croydon, the former attorney-general in this place, put submissions on behalf of his constituency by way of correspondence. Numerous concerns were raised, and there was a litany of examples where complainants generally felt that there had been a failure to deal with them respectfully and that there had been a level of failure by DPTI to provide information.

Mr Deegan acknowledged that there was some delay in relation to the timeliness of some of the requests that were made, but frankly, otherwise—if one reads this report—he continued to defend what was the indefensible in relation to the treatment of a number of people in that space at that time. Unsurprisingly, this committee reported comprehensively on those concerns. Remember, this is covering an area of Main South Road in respect of proposed developments at that time, including the intersection of Port Road and South Road, way before we had started the Darlington project.

It covered a number of areas that were going to be interfered with either in construction or in the end by the infrastructure that was proposed. It is trite to say but, of course, had the administration under Mr Bannon sold off all this land that had previously been compulsorily acquired under the MATS scheme, then of course we would not have had to go through any of this trauma. That corridor would have been built and it would have been operational. Nevertheless, we are stuck with that and that progressed.

I urge the member for West Torrens to look at this report because it outlines in considerable detail why we are here. I am a bit surprised that he has not read it. If I look at page 39, it refers to a complaint by Rita Papillo, for example. She raised her complaints. She also said, and it is reported here:

She had also been assured at a public meeting on 15 June 2013 by the then Minister that her solar panels would be relocated and her current rebate that expired on 2028 would be retained. Despite promises of assistance and repeated assurances from many DPTI staff and the Minister himself, DPTI finally advised that she was responsible for the relocation of her personal fixed items. It fell to her to organise builders and contractors and, although she forwarded quotes as instructed, none of the costs of relocating these items were compensated.

Guess who was the minister at the time? The member for West Torrens. Can you believe that? He was the minister responsible for this department, as dysfunctional as it is reported here to have been, from January 2013, I think, until after the 2014 election. I urge him to refresh his memory about why we are here, because the reality is that, as a new government, we have picked up these six recommendations for legislative reform. We have adopted them all and they are in this bill.

We have considered other matters that have been raised by the departments, as identified, and we are proposing an area of reform to make sure that we can finish this project through the Main South Road redevelopment. It is going to ultimately save something like 80-plus stoplights and will provide a clear avenue for traffic and the opportunity for traffic to join in from the Adelaide Hills at a lower, more southerly point to access Port Adelaide.

All these things are good things, but we need to be clear about how badly it has been done before and listen to what is in this report and accept these recommendations. That is exactly what we are doing and that is why we are here. In the course of that, we have had brought to our attention that tunnelling, if that is to be an option, may raise some risk as to the capacity to acquire and therefore has raised what we need to do to amend the legislation to deal with that.

Members might be aware that the previous government had put a tunnel through the East Parklands, but that did not really require compulsory acquisition because it was under a roadway already managed by the Crown and under the Parklands. Although they had some principled duties in respect of Parklands law—which they promptly seemed to ignore—they nevertheless were not required to compulsorily acquire someone else's property for the purposes of that tunnel exercise.

Going back a bit further, the Heysen Tunnels—some of the members of the house would remember when they were built—were also developed in a location where almost all the total tunnel area was on Crown land and there were no surrounding houses or private properties necessary to acquire for the purposes of that exercise. So tunnelling is not new to Adelaide. It is not common, and I think the Minister for Transport outlined some of the physical features of the Adelaide Plains that over the years have made it more difficult to actually have tunnelling.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons we do not have underground trains and other services that are common in other cities. Our soil profile and our underground water channels, etc., caused some challenges for previous people, from the colony through statehood, so we do not have that level of underground construction and/or access. Some members might be aware that we have a few tunnels running between public houses in this state and that they existed for general security and access in the past. Some of them still exist. I think that if anyone wants to hear about them they can contact the historical societies or the National Trust to be apprised of that.

This is relatively underutilised as a medium by which a transport corridor is provided, and we need to do this if we are going to give effect to exactly what other members have asked; that is, what do we do when a building or a structure or a precinct is of such precious value that we need to ensure that it be protected? I do not think there was anybody at the time who came to us or to the previous government to say that we needed to save the power box that sat on the corner of South Road and Port Road. It was not of such important historical benefit to the state, but it provided a utility and it was going to be very expensive to move, so there was a redesign of that intersection to go around that particular feature.

Sometimes it is not just for historical reasons; it is because the cost of relocation or disruption to a particular service would be massive. They are the things that have to be weighed up, and they are things that, understandably, the Minister for Transport will need to consider when he seeks approval to progress some of these major projects.

Underground tunnelling is an option if we are going to save Thebarton Theatre. I think the member for West Torrens also raised one of the churches that had been of importance to him, the Queen of Angels Church on South Road. It is a beautiful site. In fact, one of my aunts was buried there. She probably lived in the member for West Torrens' electorate. She lived at 10A Bennett Street, Thebarton, before she died, and we had her service at that church. It is a magnificent church.

I think there will be landmarks along the corridor for which the public have an affection and a desire to preserve and protect. We have already heard publicly of those who are keen to ensure that Thebarton Theatre is not affected. We have heard from the member for Badcoe of areas in her electorate that are seeking to have some security or some relief in whatever designs are ultimately finalised for the completion of the north-south corridor.

We will certainly as a government be looking to ensure that we have the most effective, as soon as practicable, completion of the north-south corridor. It is an expensive exercise. It will continue to be an expensive exercise. Where tunnelling is ultimately determined as being an option, that will be a matter the passage of this bill will make provision for and ensure, along with all of the other initiatives in the bill, that there is an increased protection for the person who is having their property compulsorily acquired.

I turn briefly now to the member for West Torrens' questions in relation to a number of clauses. I am hoping this will comprehensively cover his inquiry but, if not, I am sure in the committee he will ask me further. I am just going to outline them as follows. Clause 6, amending section 10 of the act, relates to notice of intention to acquire. The amendments provide that an amended NOI need not be given in the same way as the first notice. Proposed section 10(4) specifically provides that an amended NOI can be given if the authority intends to change the boundaries of the land it intends to acquire.

The government's amendment allows the second NOI to be given in a different way. Typically, this may occur because a person has engaged legal representation, and the correspondence should be directed to the representative, or perhaps the landowner prefers a different method of communication. The second part of that amendment means that the process does not start again in terms of timeliness, so the clock keeps running on the matter, and the second, corrected NOI does not start the whole process again.

In relation to clause 8 and the review by SACAT, we were advised by both SACAT and the Crown Solicitor's Office that the 14-day time frame in this section is too short and that both those parties had concerns about being able to meet such a short time frame, and so the section has been amended to extend the time frame to 21 days.

As to clause 9, again, this is an amendment very similar to that in clause 6 and allows the NOA to be given in a different way to the initial NOI. Once again, typically this will happen where a party has engaged legal representation since the NOI was issued.

In relation to clause 10, the notice referred to is the NOA. This amendment allows an NOA to be issued not less than three months after the first occasion on which an NOI was issued for that interest. To explain by way of example, if there is a landlord with three tenants the authority knows about and one tenant who is for some reason unknown to the authority, the authority issues NOIs to the landlord and the three known tenants. Three months pass and the authority discovers the fourth tenant and issues their NOI. The authority wants to issue the NOAs as three months have passed since the first NOIs were issued but it cannot because it has to wait until three months has passed since the last NOI was given to that fourth tenant.

The amendment means that the landlord and the first three tenants can be issued with their NOAs without waiting for the three-month period from the last NOI. The fourth tenant will get the three-month notice period to be issued with their NOA, and it means that the authority can move forward on acquiring the other interests.

Clause 12 has also been raised by the member for West Torrens. This clause proposes to amend section 22B of the act to clarify that an interest in land must be able to be alienated and vested in the authority to be able to be acquired and compensated. Native title rights cannot be vested in an authority. They are not alienable and so are an exception to that definition. Native title rights are still compensable rights if acquired under the act.

In respect of clause 13, the definition of negotiation is the ordinary meaning: it is the process of settling the offer of compensation a person is entitled to under the act. Also to clarify, the member for West Torrens mentioned that he did not think it appropriate to require a party to negotiate in good faith where the government is paying no compensation for an underground acquisition.

However, there is no negotiation in an underground acquisition because there is no compensation payable, and so the good faith requirement does not apply. Part 4A specifically disapplies that division of the act to underground acquisitions. Again, I remind the member for West Torrens that a specific recommendation of the select committee was that the duty to act in good faith be put in legislative form, and that is precisely what we are doing.

In relation to clause 14, amending section 23A, the authority will typically not be able to determine an offer of compensation in the required time frame in the case of the acquisition of a business, because determining the market value of a business is a complex undertaking requiring the complainant to provide extensive business records and other materials. This means that quantifying the value of the business does take a longer period of time.

It is not uncommon for an offer of compensation to be increased by the authority, perhaps because an additional valuation is undertaken or new information is provided. The amendments allow the additional money to be paid either to the court or directly to the claimant if they have already taken the money out of court. It is less common for offers to be varied downwards, and this would generally occur if the landlord has concealed or not provided significant information that greatly affects the value of a property. As a safeguard for claimants, the authority will be required to seek a court order to do so. The authority will still be covering the legal fees for the complainant in that matter as it is all part of the same acquisition proceedings.

In section 23AB, the six-month period that a claimant has to respond to an offer of compensation is a time frame that is intended to allow a claimant to seek legal advice, but is not so long as to hold up the matter for an extended period. The settlement conference process is outlined in the section. The authority appoints the conference coordinator and pays the cost of the conference. The qualifications of the coordinator will be prescribed in the regulations, but I can confirm that they will be required to have professional accreditation. The conference has been made compulsory to try to resolve as many disputes as possible without the stress of Supreme Court proceedings.

I will interrupt myself here to say that obviously new rules are also being prepared for the Supreme Court. The concept of having mandatory conferencing is not unique to courts, but we are ahead of the game in this regard. Again, this is an area where there is a relationship between the acquirer, which is largely the government, and individuals and/or companies or entities that own individual pieces of property. The power imbalance is obvious. The entitlement to acquire is quite extensive; it always has been.

I have looked back at legislation since 1925 in relation to compulsory acquisition of land. This is not a new phenomenon. It is something that is there for the general good of the public, to provide them with infrastructure investment and services. It is nothing new, but I make the point. We need to recognise that it was identified in the report as a factor that needed to be considered, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The conference has been made compulsory to try to resolve as many disputes as possible without the stress of Supreme Court proceedings. It is generally better for all parties not to have to go through a formal court process in terms of time, cost and the emotional toll it can take on parties. I hope members are comforted to some degree by the fact that even under our current court system there are a significant number of cases that, even once they have issued proceedings, do resolve by agreement.

The solatium payment is a lump sum based on market value, as determined during the evaluation process. The authority cannot arbitrarily reduce it. It will be either 10 per cent of the market value or $50,000, whichever is the lesser. In section 26A, regarding the payments made directly to the claimants, the prescribed amount will be $10,000. This will be mainly to allow payments to be made to tenants, who receive small amounts of compensation, as fast as possible to allow them to find a new place to live.

In relation to part 4A, I flag that there is a government amendment to be dealt with in the committee stage. Consultation submissions from the Australian Property Institute did not indicate any particular issues with the proposed amendments aside from inquiring if they were consistent with interstate acts. I am advised that no response was received from the Real Estate Institute of South Australia.

I am also advised that we will be able to provide further information about any impact on property values, since interstate, between the houses as well as any other information that was asked for. As the member for Badcoe is listening with interest to this debate, there were some issues she raised and, as I have indicated, we are following those up along with some other matters that have been raised.

I hope that covers the matters that were sought by the member for West Torrens. If there are other matters, doubtless he will put them to me in committee.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Deputy Premier has a unique ability to irritate people, which I think is probably unique to her special charm that she brings to the parliament. The opposition was quite prepared to allow a speedy passage of this legislation. We thought it would be cooperative to do so because I think everyone understands the benefits of what this bill has to offer.

But, in the Attorney's charming, unique manner, she decided to get up and insult the opposition and attack members of parliament for daring to ask questions on the bill. She accused us of not having read select committee reports and engaged in quite partisan and appalling behaviour, given that none of the comments were made by me, the member for Kaurna—who she could not recall because she does not take an interest in who the members of parliament are—or the member for Badcoe, and then began to insult us all.

It began as a very cooperative process, despite the fact that yesterday in a briefing the government promised to give me information they have not provided to me at all. I asked them for publicly available notes that they had on the explanation of clauses. They said that they would be delivered. They offered me a marked-up amendment bill. They said that would be given. That has not been given. Of course, the opposition was briefed on this yesterday and we are debating today.

I was prepared to accept all that, but the Deputy Premier simply cannot help herself because everything is partisan. There is nothing that we do in this parliament that is not Labor versus Liberal, according to the Deputy Premier, and once again her charm shines through. I see members agreeing. So let's all just settle in for a nice long evening here, talking about something that should be cooperative, but the Deputy Premier could not help herself.

If tunnelling is imminent, why not put in a commencement date? Why not tell us that this act will take effect as of 1 July or 1 December or 1 January 2020? Instead, I think my worst fears have been realised. This is a con. There is no tunnel. There is no money. There is no project to go from the river Torrens on to the Darlington project. They have not even started working on the Regency to Pym section of South Road. Of course, through the genius of the Deputy Premier, by her getting stuck into the opposition completely unnecessarily, what could have been a very, very simple passage of legislation will now be very, very difficult.

I look forward to this going to the upper house because I thought this made a lot of sense. But, given the attitude of the Deputy Premier, obviously there is some ulterior motive here. Obviously, there need to be amendments. Obviously, this bill needs to be changed. It could not have been as simple as the opposition and the government agreeing on something as important as tunnels. No, we could not have that. We had to have the Deputy Premier with her hyperpartisan attitude on everything, yet it is not backed up with actions, is it? It is not backed up with briefings. It is not backed up with the information we have asked for.

So, if the government is serious about passing this bill, the Deputy Premier perhaps should check her language, the Deputy Premier perhaps should offer the opposition the information her staff promised they would give us yesterday, and then perhaps the people's work can continue. It is not as if parliament is sitting a lot. It is not as if this government has a massive legislative agenda. My question to the Attorney-General is: why is there no commencement date in the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member would be well aware, if he remembers any time that he was in government, that where regulations need to be prepared it is not unusual that there is not a commencement date on the bill. The parliament expresses its will in relation to the legislation and regulations are then prepared and circulated for comment and implementation in due course if and when the bill has passed. That is a very common practice.

Under the previous government, I recall specifically—for example, on the natural resources management boards—that before the bill had even passed the previous government had gazetted the members of the boards. That is how arrogant the previous government was. We are not. We are doing this by a proper process. We will listen to what the will of the parliament is. We will then authorise the preparation and approval of regulations to go with it and it will have a commencement date. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing so pressing that requires the urgent approval of this bill; otherwise, it would have been brought to the attention of the parliament and suggested that we should subvert that usual practice.

Secondly, in relation to the provision of material, I am further advised that the information sought, which was a marked-up act of the current legislation that we are amending overlaid with material as to what is proposed to be changed, has been emailed to the member for West Torrens, and again just recently, in the last minutes. In case he had not read the previous email, it is there again. I would ask him to check his emails.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Who has the Deputy Premier consulted with on this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have not finished.

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens has more to add to his question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Lots more—15 minutes' worth, sir. Who has the Attorney-General consulted with on this legislation? I imagine that there are many people who are eager to have—

Ms Stinson: Not my constituents.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, my constituents have not been consulted on this bill either. Given the nature of this legislation and the impact it will have on a number of interested parties—including tenants, people who own and operate businesses in the corridor, people who own properties in the corridor, investors who live in the corridor, freight companies who use the corridor, and potential consortia that are going to be bidding to build tunnels—has the government considered speaking to any tunnelling experts on this matter? Has it consulted with them about scope, how the acquisitions should take place and how far in advance they take place?

Has the government consulted with the Property Council, Business SA or REISA? Has it consulted with the local councils impacted by the bill? Has the government consulted with the Freight Council on this bill? Has it consulted with the RAA on this bill? Has it consulted with the residential tenants' association on this bill?

Let me give the Deputy Premier a good 13-minute education on consultation, given how impressive she was in her closing remarks to the parliament. Consultation is one of the most important aspects of consideration in the commencement of any piece of legislation. Commencement of any act means that obviously the parliament has listened to the concerns of all the people who have been impacted by the bill. Sometimes, people who are not readily considered to be impacted by the legislation come out of the woodwork between the houses.

It is important in getting good legislation and good governance that we do not just rely on the Deputy Premier shouting at the opposition, demanding to know whether or not we have read a select committee report tabled in another place that is apparently the basis for every single amendment before the parliament, which is what the Deputy Premier told the parliament. There was no ambiguity whatsoever in that statement.

The Deputy Premier told us that the entirety of the findings of the select committee are the basis for the amendment bill, so between the houses I will be doing a very quick check to make sure that every single recommendation of the select committee is in these amendments and every amendment is referenced in the select committee report, because that is what the Deputy Premier just told the house. There was no ambiguity there. Indeed, she was mocking the opposition for not having read the select committee report. Wasn't that genius?

Of course, the Deputy Premier in her wisdom knows better than all of us, including you Mr Chairman, me and the member for Badcoe. She is smarter than all of us, so it will be interesting to see when we compare the amendments to that report to make sure that this committee has not been given any information that is not correct because, of course, if it has that could cause resignation or humiliation.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Laugh. The comments were there. To paraphrase, I think the comments were that, if I had taken the time or bothered to read the select committee report, it is the basis of these amendments, so I am sure that every single amendment in the Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill is referenced in the select committee report, and I am sure that there is nothing in the select committee report that is at odds with this amendment bill.

I am sure it is identical, like holding a mirror to it, because anything else would have been misleading the parliament. Anything else would have been giving this parliament incorrect information about a bill that we are considering to try to influence us to pass the bill speedily. Of course, there is no greater crime any parliamentarian can commit than misleading the parliament, so we will check.

In terms of commencement, given that there is no commencement date and the Attorney-General told us that there is no rush, there is no urgency with this bill. She said so herself with her own words. There is no urgency whatsoever to pass this because there are no imminent works. We had the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure say something very different. He said that an announcement is imminent about whether or not the government's comparison between overpasses and underpasses and the 2015 scope of work for the north-south corridor will be done in comparison to a tunnelling project, given tunnelling costs have decreased. That is at odds with what the Deputy Premier has just told us, because there is no urgency apparently.

It is not urgent that we pass this. We can talk about this for weeks or months, using the words of the Attorney-General in her wisdom. Who has been consulted? How were they consulted? Have any of the people who were consulted not supported the amendments put before the house? Have any of them raised concerns that have not been contemplated in the amendment bill? Have any of the organisations that were consulted offered any alternatives? Do any oppose the amendment bill? What does the Law Society say? Were they consulted? What is their view about compulsory acquisition without there being any form of compensation? All these matters are very important to commencement. If only we had the select committee report right here in front of us, then we would be as smart as the Deputy Premier. If only we were that clever.

I would be interested to hear in my second question on the first clause of this process, which the Attorney-General has guaranteed will take hours, who has been consulted? How were they consulted? What has been the outcome of that consultation? How many times did she meet with the Property Council, the Law Society and the Bar Association? What is the Bar Association's view on compulsory acquisition without compensation? I am sure they have a view on all of this. What is the view of all the tenancy associations?

Ms Stinson: Southern Business Connections.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Southern Business Connections and, again, the local council. They will be very interested to know about the Attorney-General's discussions with the West Torrens council regarding compulsory acquisition and tunnelling, and whether the Attorney has had any discussions with Charles Sturt council just because they adjoin West Torrens council.

Ms Stinson: Unley.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Has Unley council been consulted? There is a whole gamut of people and questions that we can raise. Just looking at the amendment provisions and going through all of these, the interpretation raises a good 45 minutes' worth of questions and discussions that we could have on how interpretations come about. I am giving the committee forewarning given how stupid we all are on this side of the house. If only we had the intelligence of the Deputy Premier.

Before I ask my next question, can the Deputy Premier detail to the house with whom she consulted, how she chose to consult with them, the manner in which they were consulted—was it a letter, was it a meeting—and whether they object to or support the amendments? Does she have letters of support from every organisation that she consulted with? Given that in her own words, 'This is not urgent,' if they do not agree, will the minister then adjourn this debate and come back to the house and the committee with the views of the organisations that she has not consulted with that should be consulted with?

I think it is important that we get the full gamut here because we are fundamentally changing the way in which we can do road construction with tunnels. It is very important that we understand in detail the impact this will have. I would also be interested to know what the Real Institute of South Australia thinks about this matter because we had the Deputy Premier who did not, I think, address property values, but the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure did.

Given that the commencement is unknown, will that have an impact this summer and spring for real estate prices, or will it have an impact next season? Should there be more consultation with the Real Estate Institute? What does that currently mean for people who have their houses on the market? But I am sure the Deputy Premier has done all those consultations, given how much cleverer she is than all of us.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I was saying, the Crown Solicitor, the Treasurer, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the Law Society of South Australia, the South Australian Bar Association, the Australian Property Institute, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia, the Tenants' Information and Advisory Service, SA Water and the Local Government Association were all consulted regarding the bill with a letter in writing that was sent out in early August. Not all of those responded.

In light of the specific question raised as to the West Torrens council and the Unley council having a particular interest, the indication from the Local Government Association was that they would consult with their relevant councils and get back to us if there was anything further to add. That was on 9 August and we have not had anything further from them. The member himself indicated that he wants to consult with his local constituent councils. I do not know whether he did that back in 2017 when the report was completed; nevertheless, obviously he would like to consult specifically and perhaps does not rely on the LGA following that up or is concerned that they have not been consulted. Of course, he will have the opportunity to do that.

The urgency in relation to the matter, I repeat, is one where there is such urgency that we would need to circumvent the usual process, namely, having introduced the bill a couple of weeks' ago, to come to the parliament and say, 'We need to pass this immediately,' as happened from time to time with the previous government. Usually there was very good reason if there needed to be urgent consideration, and we would need to abridge the usual time that would be allowed. The listing of this matter today is consistent with the usual practice of ensuring that the bill is laid on the table to enable exactly what the member for West Torrens complains of, and that is his opportunity to consult. I note that he wants to do some further consultation. That is entirely his prerogative.

I indicate that in general the response in relation to the legislation has been positive; it supports and includes the six legislative proposals in the select committee report. As has been previously indicated in the second reading, in comment made and, indeed, by the Minister for Transport, there are a number of other practices by DPTI that are already operating and/or have been implemented covering the recommendations in the select committee report, which, as I said, and I repeat for the purpose of this question, has been a useful document.

It was a comprehensive inquiry. Everyone could come and make a submission. Many did, such as the people directly affected by this, some of whom I do not doubt live in the member for West Torrens' electorate, may live in the member for Badcoe's electorate, but certainly lived in the member for Croydon's electorate because of the concerns that were raised at that time.

I do not know what other consultation he would like to do. We believe that we have comprehensively considered this. We think it should have been acted on. We are acting on it. We have conferred again with the usual parties who have a direct interest in this matter, and I am satisfied that they are supportive of the bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It seems to me that there was one group that was not consulted and that was the Property Council, which is interesting. I just wonder whether it is because the government and the Property Council are not on talking terms anymore, given the language of the Treasurer, who talked about the Property Council being 'our former friends'. I would have thought that the Property Council would be the first port of call when talking about compulsory acquisition, given they are the peak body for land ownership in South Australia.

However, the Deputy Premier, who knows more than all of us combined and who is smarter than all of us combined, chose not to consult with the Property Council, which I think speaks about the breakdown of the government's relationship with business in this state. Correct me if I am wrong, but I also did not hear that Business SA had been consulted, the oldest chamber of commerce in Australia, I think, lest I be corrected. They also were not consulted.

Martin Haese, the CEO of Business SA, and Mr Gannon, the CEO of the Property Council, are known to all of us. Their details are available. It is not as if it is a stretch for the vice-regal office of the Deputy Premier to contact the Property Council or Business SA and ask them their views about property acquisition and the way it is being changed, especially in dealing with their members, because property acquisition also relates to businesses.

My understanding is that Business SA and the Property Council have not been consulted. The first question, two minutes into my 15-minute question, is why? Why would you not talk to the Property Council? Why would you not talk to Business SA? I would have thought that the orthodox thing to do would be to contact the peak bodies of people who own property and people who are in business to discuss property acquisition policy and legislative change.

It is fascinating to hear that the Deputy Premier has chosen not to, perhaps because her intelligence is so overwhelming that she would know their responses in advance and therefore does not need to consult with them, because she is really smart, or it is because she has not done her job and is not interested in what people think. She has a majority and she is going to pass it, so who cares what the Property Council or Business SA think?

My theory—and it is just a theory I propose; I do not have any evidence to support this—is that relationships between the Property Council and the government have so broken down that they cannot even consult on routine measures. I also did not hear the Freight Council in that list of organisations consulted. So the Freight Council, who are north-south corridor advocates and big users of the north-south corridor, were not consulted. I did not hear about the RAA being consulted, and they are big users of the north-south corridor. They were not consulted. The Property Council, which is the peak body for people who are directly impacted through their property, were not consulted. Business SA, representing people who work in the buildings that are being acquired, were not spoken to.

It takes a special kind of genius—a rare talent and a rare type of intellect—to consult on that level. I am not that smart; I cannot possibly know what they are all thinking, but the Deputy Premier can. Perhaps that is why she has been promoted above all of you opposite: because of that intellect in taking a routine bill and turning it into this. That is special. That is really special. I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, 4½ minutes into my 15-minute question, why it is that that the Property Council were not consulted. Why would you not consult, or is it because of a breakdown in consultation? I make the point, sir, that the Deputy Premier is on her mobile phone, which is deeply out of order in this parliament, and perhaps you should not allow it.

Another thing is that Business SA have every right to be consulted on these matters, especially given the nature of the acting in good faith regime change, because no doubt they are the ones who employed the lawyers who are being requited. I have no doubt that the Law Society would have their views. I wish the Law Society's views were on the introduction of a good-faith obligation on their members. I am sure most good lawyers would support it. Again, I have no problem with both parties acting in good faith. I think it was a sensible move by the government. The question then becomes, and let us get to the principle of the matter here: what were their views and what did they say to the government? Were they opposed to it?

The minister read out a long list of government organisations that have been consulted. I am glad that the Chief Justice was consulted. I am glad that the Treasurer was consulted on a bill that he agreed to in cabinet. I am glad that other government agencies were consulted. That is 'fantastic', but what about the people who were actually impacted?

The LGA was consulted—they were told in August via a letter—but we were not told who sent them the letter. Who informed them? Was it the Attorney-General, was it the minister, was it the head of your department or was it the Crown Solicitor? Who was it? Was it parliamentary counsel? Who wrote this letter, and was there a time frame on submissions coming back?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I think I heard the Deputy Premier say that she signed the letters. That is good: the Deputy Premier signed the letters. Given that the Deputy Premier conducted the consultation, and given that we are talking about part 1 to commencement, the question then becomes: why had the organisations that I mentioned not been consulted? While the Deputy Premier was signing all these letters to the Treasurer, the Chief Justice, Crown law and some other government organisations—that is, the government speaking to itself—why did she not consult with the Property Council and Business SA?

Given that the councils and the LGA have not responded, did the Deputy Premier think that perhaps she should pick up the phone, call the LGA and say, 'Do you have any views on this, because we are introducing this into the parliament?' I know that is a bit much for the vice-regal office to actually go out and speak to people. After all, she did put her signature on a piece of paper. Perhaps we could find that out.

I wonder what the Property Council thinks about the principle of land acquisition without compensation? Maybe it is okay with it. I am not sure if I heard the Real Estate Institute mentioned in that long list. I do not think I did, but I stand to be corrected. Is the Deputy Premier nodding that it was?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Yes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was? They were consulted? The Deputy Premier is nodding that the Real Estate Institute of South Australia were consulted. I would love to know whether they support these amendments and whether or not they feel that the amendment bill is something they can actually back. Again, given that commencement is entirely in the hands of the minister making a recommendation to the Governor in Executive Council, no-one knows when this bill will start. Uncertainty is causing a lot of problems in the South Australian economy.

Given that we have the highest unemployment rate now in the nation, at 7.3 per cent, and that the government's land tax measures are causing such uncertainty, is another measure on land, with the uncertainty of a commencement date that is known only in the greatest mind of all, the Deputy Premier's, somehow going to impact property values and property prices?

I think these are all questions that deserve to be answered—perhaps if only I had read the select committee report and if only I had listened to the Deputy Premier. I will be looking forward to the Deputy Premier giving me a detailed answer on whether or not the Real Estate Institute support the measures in the amendment bill and what their submission response said, or if they did reply. Why did the Deputy Premier not write to the Property Council and Business SA and ask their views on whether or not they supported this amendment bill and the measures within this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the bill itself, remembering that it is a bill essentially to expand and protect the interests of the party who is having their property acquired, we think that the list that has been provided to the committee is a good and comprehensive list. A number of the parties, including the Real Estate Institute, did not respond at all. As I indicated, the Local Government Association did respond in early August to say that they would consult with local councils and, if there was anything further, they would get in touch with us.

I am satisfied that, having issued that and having received a significant number of responses supporting the thrust of this bill, that has been very significant. The two-year consultation via the select committee has been both an impressive report and long period of consultation, which has helped advise the government in relation to this matter. Should the member take the view that other entities or associations or persons need to be consulted, he can do so and help inform himself in relation to this bill; otherwise, I will treat his contribution as comment.

Ms STINSON: My question is around when this act will actually come into effect. The reason why I ask that is that for the time that I have been the candidate and now the member for Badcoe, I have had local people asking me when the South Road upgrade will be going ahead. It is not just a matter of mere curiosity for people, though of course lots of people in the area may not be directly affected by it and do have an interest in the project.

For example, there are vacant businesses along South Road. Landowners who have approached me are desperately in need of some sort of guidance from the government on when an alignment will be released and when construction will start because at the moment they are unable to lease their business properties to new tenants because no-one wants to move into a property that may then be the subject of the alignment and then that business compulsorily acquired and they have to set up business all over again.

The vet at Black Forest is one example of a property that has remained empty for quite some time now. I know that that is causing some financial hardship to those involved with that property. It is also obviously a disappointment to my community that we have vacant businesses and that we are not able to avail ourselves of new businesses in those properties—for example, a vet—in the Black Forest area.

I understand that the Attorney was already asked about why there was not a commencement date in here. My question is: can the Attorney can provide any sort of guidance to people in Badcoe, and indeed West Torrens, Elder and other electorates, about when this bill will become an act and come into force and any information that she might be able to provide on when we might see an alignment announced and land acquisitions commenced as part of the South Road upgrade?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just indicate that, as the member I think is well aware, the upgrade is progressing and it is taking place in chunks, if I can put it as crudely as that. As she will be aware, south of her electorate, in the Darlington area, a major piece of work is currently underway, and my understanding is that it is progressing well.

Within her electorate as I am aware, and I cannot attest to exactly where the boundary of Badcoe is, I know that the intersection between the Anzac Highway and South Road was a major piece of work under minister Conlon. The work that was done to fix up the failure to provide an overpass for the tram—which I think is in the seat of Badcoe—was also done under minister Conlon, with rapid attention to just south of the intersection I have referred to, north of the Black Forest Primary School, if that is still in the member for Badcoe's area. It is not in your electorate?

Ms Stinson: That is definitely in my electorate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Okay. Those parts have been done on a piecemeal basis. There are other areas, such as the suburb of Croydon, for example, which is south of another major area of work that is being done on the South Road-Port Road intersection, and there is also quite a tranche of residential and commercial leading down to Darlington. Where that finishes in the member for Badcoe's electorate and starts in the member for Elder's electorate or other electorates I cannot be certain.

However, I think that she is well aware that the whole project, the whole 80-plus intersections, which are going to be saved to have lights here, are being dealt with in pieces. In fact, I can remember the member for Badcoe prior to her being in the parliament meeting me out at the superway—another large piece of this whole project, which is the elevated section north of her electorate and which required an enormous amount of compulsory acquisition.

In fact, I can remember quite a lot of Supreme Court litigation arising out of that as a result of the then government demanding to acquire certain property of which, as I was advised at the time, the owners were quite prepared to have a long-term lease but, no, the government wanted to go into property ownership itself and it wanted to have the property. It took it to the Supreme Court.

I recall the member for Badcoe being up there on several occasions when I was the shadow minister for transport asking questions about the issues surrounding that project. So she is familiar, I think, with the fact that there has been a piecemeal development of certain portions of this. There is the one leading up to the select committee involving the constituency of the member for Croydon, who was very aggrieved at a number of aspects of the rollout of that part of the project, culminating in the select committee, which has not yet been completed.

I would suggest to the member for Badcoe that, if she wants to have specific indication to advise her constituency, she specifically puts those issues to the Minister for Transport and seeks a briefing on which particular projects. I cannot read the member for Badcoe's mind as to anyone in her electorate who may have raised concerns and which bits have been raised. I just simply indicate that there may be different reasons that people in her constituency have contacted her about not having notice or wanting to know whether this portion is part of the project that is going to be developed, etc. In that regard, I urge her to meet with the Minister for Transport's nominees to have a briefing in relation to any of those particular aspects; otherwise, I do not think I can assist her.

Ms STINSON: That is disappointing. I will say I have had some contact with the Minister for Transport over the last 18 months and, unfortunately, have not been able to get a briefing on what the plans for South Road are, so I welcome her comments and I certainly will be raising the matter with the Minister for Transport again. Hopefully—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Drop her name.

Ms STINSON: I will; I will be dropping her name. I appreciate it, actually; it is very helpful. I will go back to him and see if a briefing is now available on the plans for South Road so that I can inform my constituents and put their minds at ease and enable them to make the decisions they need to make for their families and their business interests.

My second question was about whether the Attorney had consulted with any local business groups, particularly Southern Business Connections, which represents a large number of businesses in the wider southern suburbs, including businesses along South Road, whether any of the main street organisations in the area had been consulted and whether the Castle Plaza Shopping Centre had been consulted.

I would also like to know if the Attorney is aware of communications between the new Bunnings at Edwardstown and the Attorney or the Minister for Transport. Obviously, that is a fairly recent development. I have been led to believe that there were some assurances given that the Bunnings would not need to relocate and would be fine to stay in its current location. However, lately there have been some questions raised about whether that advice was provided and the nature of that advice.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to the Bunnings property, I am aware that it is situated on South Road. I do not have any information in relation to what correspondence it or its legal representatives, or any other representative—perhaps you, member for Badcoe—may have presented to the Minister for Transport or departmental officials, so I cannot assist you specifically in relation to that.

Can I perhaps put in some perspective here that this is not a bill to amend legislation to just provide a potential tunnel under one of the intersections on South Road. It is clearly a major project for which a tunnel option is being considered for all the reasons given, and I think everyone agrees it is important that we at least consider them as a government. This is a piece of legislation which deals with all property acquisitions.

From our perspective, we do not undertake a consultation with the people of South Australia, have a YourSAy website, on amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, but it is important that we go to the people who have historically represented the major interests, and they include, obviously, legal associations, the Property Institute, the Real Estate Institute, the Tenants' Information and Advisory Service and SA Water. These are all organisations which one way or another are very much involved in the acquisition of land or have an interest, like SA Water, in their potential amenity being interfered with if there is proposed development for which land acquisition is proposed.

No, we have not consulted with individuals along a particular piece of infrastructure that is proposed, but we all know in this house that the Minister for Transport has made very clear that he is considering how he might address some of the issues that have been raised, usually surrounding the protection of certain interests, property, precinct or buildings, and tunnelling is something that he would like his advisers to give advice on as to an option in relation to infrastructure proposed.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The first of my three 45-minute questions will be on interpretations.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: I think they are 15 minutes each.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Three: 15 plus 15 plus 15. With a brain your size, surely you can work out that it is 45 minutes.

The CHAIR: Order! You are both correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, sir, only the Deputy Premier is correct. No-one else in her vision can be correct.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you do quite rightly have the opportunity to speak for 15 minutes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I know I am right, sir, unless the Deputy Premier says otherwise. The interpretation seems to change the definition of compensation, which I think is an interesting concept. The clause amends the definition of compensation to provide that payments made under part 4, division 4 (other payments inserted by this bill) do not constitute compensation for the purposes of this act.

If I turn to the very generous explanation that the Attorney-General gave us on this matter, she claims that the definition of compensation is different from another definition of compensation within this bill. I would like her to go into detail and explain this to me and indicate if she has received any advice of any unintended consequence which would allow—and I do not think this is the case, but I will just check—the state to compulsorily acquire land that is underground but being used and utilised, such as an underground car park, a bore or a well, and not compensate the landowner because it is below surface level. Has she received any advice that that is the case? I do not think that is the case. I hope it is not the case because that would mean that the briefings I have received are inaccurate.

The way I read this, and I could be wrong, is that there will be two definitions of compensation in the bill: one for land as we know it—properties that you can see and touch on the surface—and then compensation for land taken beneath, for which compensation is not payable. Could the Attorney-General give us an explanation of what exactly that interpretation does? I would be interested to know why parliamentary counsel use that terminology, and has she been advised of any unintended consequences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, I am not aware of any unintended consequences. Secondly, it seems that the member for West Torrens has misunderstood what is being referred to here. This is a provision which clearly attempts to secure the protection of the obligation to meet up-front payments for professional costs not forming part of the compensation. In other words, the person gets their compensation plus the up-front professional costs. This specifically provides, 'does not include a payment under Part 4 Division 4', which relates to the entitlement in that way. I hope that covers the matter.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand that the initial payment of compensation is for $10,000 that is paid directly. That is a separate matter. I am trying to understand this. From the briefing I received, you are given an up-front payment for legal fees up to $10,000. I could be wrong, but that is what I thought it was, and at the end of the process the rest are reimbursed, and that is separate from the compensation for land.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Given the definition is changing, has there been any question in the past that a reimbursement of legal fees has constituted compensation? I am trying to understand the necessity of this amendment. The question is: have people's reimbursements for professional services been deducted from compensation previously and, if they have not, why is this clause necessary?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: At present, we have a process where compensation is negotiated and/or determined by the court. That can be in addition to legal fees that are either negotiated or determined by a court at the end. What is being introduced in this bill is the opportunity for the person whose property is going to be acquired to have money up-front to undertake professional work: valuers, assessors, legal practitioners, etc. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that they get access to that, are able to get that advice and that it be independent of the $10,000 solatium and independent of the total compensation that is either negotiated or determined.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sorry, the solatium is $50,000 or 10 per cent, whichever is the lesser.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have just witnessed a historic act: an error by the Deputy Premier. It is remarkable. I can tell my children I was there when it happened. Given the court can still decide compensation under this act after the commencement of arbitration that the act imposes—not arbitration in a literal sense, but some sort of conciliation or settlement conference—I would imagine that in the past the court has treated compensation separately from professional legal services incurred by the proponent or the landowner who is attempting to negotiate through the Supreme Court.

I still have not got my head around the necessity of the government codifying this. I understand the up-front payment, but any compensation that the court would award would be separate from a reimbursement of professional services and fees that the person may have paid. I imagine that in the past someone would have retained a lawyer, valuations were paid for by the department anyway—that is my understanding—and you would go to court, the court would decide the level of compensation and your fees would be taken care of.

I am not sure what the difference is between that process and this, other than the up-front payment of the $10,000. I do not know of a situation where a proponent to the court has had a smaller level of compensation because of the amount of professional services or fees that they may have accumulated getting to that process. I accept that what the government is attempting to do is a good thing. They are trying to give people money up-front to be able to get these services.

I am sure that in the long term the government somehow saves out of this, otherwise Treasury would not have agreed to the up-front payment. I am assuming that, somewhere along the line, there is a saving for government because of the up-front payment. I am interested to know the necessity of this amendment, given that I cannot think of a case where professional services and fees were deducted from compensation or a court ordered, 'The compensation is only X because you have to pay this level of fees.' I would be interested in the Attorney's answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I repeat what I said earlier; that is, if arbitrated by a court, a compensation payment, if successful, would be awarded together with any application that they are successful on for costs and disbursements, including valuation fees and the like. That is what happens now. This bill gives an opportunity for the applicant, the party seeking to have fair compensation for their property under this law, to have up-front access to money by the department, who has to provide it, so they can go and get their professional advice and valuations, etc.

It may not be clear to the member for West Torrens, but I am sure other members on his side would understand that not everyone has access to the resources of meeting legal proceedings. They are expensive. Sometimes lawyers want money up-front. There are disbursements that they expect to be paid. They do not have the money and/or access to finance to support that and that is quite a difficulty for those who think they have a fair case but their access to legal representation is limited.

The whole purpose of this—and again I think that if you read the select committee's report, it is very important that we listen to what they say—is to ensure that people who have a fair claim get access to professional services and they are not restricted in their capacity to sit down and negotiate. In fact, they are obliged to negotiate and hopefully that will save everyone the stress and costs of further litigation. So there are two aspects of this that are important for the litigants: firstly, the up-front payment of moneys, and usually DPTI is the payer in this case, and, secondly, the obligation for mandatory conferencing.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The government claims that they need an amendment to put beyond doubt that the act authorises a compulsory acquisition on land to be taken to authorise acquisition of underground land. Section 7 of the 1969 act, which is currently in operation, empowers the government to do just that already. It provides:

(1) This Act applies to and in relation to every acquisition of land authorised by a special Act.

(1a) A special Act that authorises the compulsory acquisition of land will be taken to authorise the acquisition of land as defined by this Act.

If we go to definitions within this act, I think land is defined. I do not have the definitions in front of me, but I struggle to see the need for this, other than an abundance of caution. I note that there is another amendment before us as well that amends, I think, application. It was a government amendment that was tabled recently on native title. I do not have it here in front of me.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get one. Section 7—Application, subsection (3), provides:

(3) In its application to the acquisition of native title, this Act operates subject to the provisions of any relevant registered indigenous land use agreement under the Native Title Act…

That is in terms of reference to commonwealth legislation that has any native title considerations. My point is that, given the bill is inserting a clause to put this beyond doubt, why is it necessary, because I imagine that there is nothing in here that requires permission to acquire air space, yet bridges are built and overpasses are built? I am not quite sure what the legal distinction is. Has the Attorney-General received any advice that the government does not currently hold the right to acquire land beneath the ground?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, the act is silent on this issue and that is why it is very specifically identified to avoid doubt that we are identifying underground land.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the act is silent on underground land, does that therefore mean the government has no right to build above land because it is not specifically mentioned in the act, as you are building bridges, as you are building buildings that might infringe on someone's airspace? I suppose the classic example of that is the South Road Superway.

There is nothing in here that says the government can compulsorily acquire an air right, given that the briefing the minister's department gave me that said that people have rights beneath them and above them. Given that the superway does go over freehold land and given that there is nothing in here that says the government has a right to acquire that, does this amendment therefore mean that the government needs a further amendment in terms of air rights?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, no. The reason for that is that the approval of a bridge or a building that intrudes into the airspace and that you describe requires a different set of approvals. People do not own the aviation space above them and we are yet to write all the laws about space outside of oxygen. In any event, in relation to the direct space above land, there are other laws that relate to the intrusion into the airspace that could occur as a result of a structure being built—planning laws, building codes etc. The answer to the question is no but, because the act is silent in relation to underground, that is why it is in here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: To be clear about this, the minister is saying that the government can build a bridge over someone's land using the Development Act or the Planning Act not the Land Acquisition Act. That is point 1 that the Attorney just told the house. Point 2 is that the Attorney also told the house that people do not own the airspace above them, which is not what I was told by the lawyer the Attorney sent to give me a briefing.

I understand that where there is commonwealth legislation in place giving precedent to air traffic, that is different, but I am talking about areas where there is no commonwealth legislation. The Attorney-General has just told the house, 'No, with airspace, there is no such thing in terms of land acquisition for bridges or overpasses or exit ramps or anything else of the sort,' which I think is reassuring. I know that there are buildings underneath the South Road Superway, and those rights have not been acquired by the state.

In reading this act and in reading the amendment, I was trying to work out what is the problem the government is trying to solve here, other than removing any doubt because the government has the right to compulsorily acquire land. Whether the land is on the surface or beneath the surface, what is the difference? It is land. I am not quite sure what the distinction is, but the advice I received from the agency in my briefing was, 'Well, actually, people have rights beneath the ground and they have rights above them.' Obviously that information given to me was incorrect. Obviously—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: We are at cross-purposes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are at cross-purposes, are we? Well, we have plenty of time to sort this out; it is not urgent. I would like the Attorney to give me an explanation as to if we have to codify that we need underground land, despite the act being quite clear that it gives you the authorisation to acquire land, how do you define underground land?

What is the definition of underground land? With Torrens to Torrens, we acquired the property but we have not gone under anyone's house. I do not think any of our exit ramps go near any other property rights along Torrens to Torrens. My assumption would be that the state already has this right and that this amendment is redundant. The question then becomes: if we do not have the right and the amendment is necessary, why do we not need one for above?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I hope this clarifies this. The question really emanated from: if we need to deal with underground by a clarification to be beyond doubt, then why do we not do it above the space? Let's use the superway, as that example has been used. The government have built the structure—cars, trucks and things traverse it—and it sits there and there is a right for that structure to be there, having gone through certain approvals.

It is the obligation of the government, the owner of it, to make sure that it does not breach other laws, such as getting in the way of helicopters or aviation or, for example, the right to light of other buildings around it. These are the sorts of things that have to be sorted out. Once it has approval to do that, it has a capacity to occupy that space. It is right: there can still be other development that sits underneath it, including houses and other roads, but that does not mean that we need to have in our land acquisition law a provision for compensation for that airspace. I hope that is clear.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This amendment removes 'if' and substitutes 'Subject to this Act, if'. What is the necessity of this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Under the act, if the bill passes, there will be new obligations and therefore they will be obligations that will say that this relates to the notice of intention being issued and that the requirements in relation to it will then apply. It is simply to accommodate the fact that we are adding into it a regime in relation to the notice of intention.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The next amendment in clause 6 is to section 10(4), deleting 'and in the same way'. The subsection now reads:

If the Authority changes the boundaries of the land it proposes to acquire in any respect, the Authority must immediately serve a notice of amendment to the notice of intention to acquire the land on the same persons and in the same way…

The government wants to delete 'and in the same way' in relation to the notice of intention to acquire. Can I ask the government why?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think I used this example in the contribution I made in response. If the notice is given initially directly to the person by registered post and then they nominate a lawyer, at present the notice still has to go to the person, not the lawyer. So, notwithstanding that a person has nominated a particular legal practitioner to receive further notices on their behalf, unless we change the law they would not be able to do that. There would still be the obligation to serve directly on the person.

Obviously, in other proceedings, if someone nominates an agent, such as a legal practitioner, because they do not understand what they have, or they want to get advice, or they want to be protected, the lawyer gets the notices second. That is the example I gave. To enable that to happen, the notice can be issued differently to that practitioner. As the member may know, practitioners might be served by email, by fax, by DX exchange boxes, if they still have them, etc. So that process is different from the original process, which requires that it be given to the applicant, that is, the applicant for compensation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Let me get this straight: the current act says 'on the same persons and in the same way'. So if the person has a lawyer—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is obviously ridiculous.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is obviously ridiculous. My concern here is that legal practitioners should be getting the notice at the same time and in the same way as the person they represent—they have a right to that. The state is now saying, 'We are not going to tell your lawyer; we are just going to tell you,' but people are entitled to nominate their lawyer as their representative and to receive information.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It does not seem that you are. It seems that the government is saying, 'If we sent it by email the first time, we have to send it by email the second time, otherwise it's redundant.' That sounds silly. I have no opposition to you removing this, but I am stunned that we are even talking about this because the words 'on the same persons and in the same way' were probably initially drafted to make sure that the government cannot inform people in a different way so that they are not aware that things have changed. I am assuming that the intent of the original clause was to make sure that the procedure followed initially is the same as the procedure followed the next time, so that everyone knows what the rules are.

The government is deleting that, so it could be, 'Well, we put it in the Gazette. Didn't you see it in the Gazette? We informed you in the Gazette.' I am a bit worried about this, not because I think the government's intent is to try to hoodwink people but because, if you are changing the manner in which you do it from one time to another, there is nothing in the act that requires you to inform the same person in the same way you informed them the first time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There is notice that still has to be given, on both occasions, to the person. The only thing that is changing is how they are notified and where that address might be. Say, for example, the member for West Torrens, Tom Koutsantonis, was going to seek to have compensation for a property and he decides that he is going to instruct Vickie Chapman as his lawyer.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He has a notice and he thinks, 'What the hell does this mean?'

The CHAIR: It is just an example, of course.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He decides, 'I have this notice, so I am going to contact these people at DPTI and tell them that I am instructing Vickie Chapman to act for me, and this is her address.' So the next notice to Tom Koutsantonis has to go to Tom Koutsantonis via Vickie Chapman's professional address because Tom Koutsantonis has said, 'I want to nominate these people to represent me.' So, yes, a second notice has to be sent, but not in the same way because that would ignore his instruction that he has made a decision to have a representative. That is what it is to accommodate: not that he does not get notice the second time but that his preferred party to receive it is respected. That is what we are trying to do here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We really—

The CHAIR: We are going to squeeze another question in?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I understand the government's intent—

The CHAIR: It is a point of clarification, isn't it, member for West Torrens? Is it a point of clarification on clause 6?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. Have we really reached the point of madness where courts are saying that because it was not sent on the same fax number to the same person the government is in breach of section 4, part 2 of the act? It is ridiculous.

I accept the government's argument that they do want people to be aware, but they just do not want it codified to the point of the ridiculous, but I am also concerned that the government can say, 'We've notified you because we published it in the public notices.' In the same way, to me, it says, 'We wrote you a letter the first time. We are writing you a letter the second time.'

I accept what the Attorney-General said, but I also think the people who designed the act to start with were also trying to protect people to make sure that they knew the government was changing what they wanted. We will keep a close eye on this, and perhaps the government between the houses can think of a better wording to make sure that the people who are being informed are informed in the same manner—that is, if it is a notice or a letter or an email or whatever the process of contacting people is, whether it is through their lawyer or otherwise—so that it does not descend into, 'We put an ad in The Murray Pioneer; you should have known.'

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Let's be clear: notice requires a notice directed to the person, not an advertisement on social media, Facebook, The Advertiser, The Courier-Mail or anything else. It is a notice and there are prescriptive arrangements around that. This is simply to accommodate where it is go to and the format in which it is to go. The same information, the same obligation to give notice—to use the example, to Mr Tom Koutsantonis, and the example that I have referred to—is still required.

Ms STINSON: I was looking for some clarification. It is possible I have misread here, but I wondered if the Attorney or her advisers might assist me. As far as the question of method of service goes, when I go back to the Land Acquisition Act, it provides, 'For method of service see Part 5 Native Title (South Australia) Act,' which I have seen, and it seems very, very specific to native title matters and not really much to do with the circumstances that we find ourselves with in this bill. I just wondered if I have understood correctly in that the method of service is the one that is in the Native Title (South Australia) Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Which section are referring to?

Ms STINSON: Part 5 of the Native Title (South Australia) Act. In the Land Acquisition Act it is part 2, section 10.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, 'A notice of intention to acquire land'.

Ms STINSON: There is a note just above section 11 in the Land Acquisition Act.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am looking at it.

Ms STINSON: There is a note that says, 'For method of service see Part 5 Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994,' but then when I go to that section it seems very specific to native title holders and talks about their registered representatives and relevant representative Aboriginal bodies. Is this in fact the method of service that a person would follow?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can we be clear here that the parties are the person who is seeking to have compensation for their land that is acquired, and the agency—in this case, DPTI—which has an obligation, wanting to acquire the land. There is a third group and that is those who are the beneficiaries of native title. That is frequently neither of these other two parties; in fact, most likely not. So what is important to the Native Title Act is the process that is to occur in relation to service on a party who may have an interest in native title.

Ms STINSON: I might just clarify what I am talking about. Maybe I have not been quite clear enough. What I was seeking to find out was what the method of service was for both land acquisitions and underground acquisitions. From my reading of the Land Acquisition Act 1969, I was referred to Part 5—Service on native title holders. What I am trying to clarify is whether that is the process for method of service that I should be looking at for all parties, or have I misunderstood that in some way and that is simply the process specifically for native title holders?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will get that for you; I will get the act. The general provisions for service are in the miscellaneous section of the current Land Acquisition Act 1969. The provision for native title is in—and that only relates to the native title parties.

Ms STINSON: Would you mind finishing the sentence? I think you are saying 'the provision for native title is in the'. Which section of the Land Acquisition Act is it in?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Section 5; you just referred to it—part 5. The normal method of service is outlined, I think, in the miscellaneous section of the act—section 31. I will just find it and read it out to you, if you like.

Ms STINSON: No, I have it.

The CHAIR: So everyone is clear on that. One more question, member for Badcoe.

Ms STINSON: My question is whether the method of service is the same for underground, which is of course a new provision in the bill, and whether it is the same as the process that is adopted for existing at grade, if you like, land acquisitions. Can you detail any differences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The short answer is, no, because it is truncated. All the provisions in part 2, which is in part 4A, do not apply. Part 2, part 3, part 4, division 2 do not apply.

The CHAIR: A final question—this is a point of clarification, is it not, member for Badcoe?

Ms STINSON: Sure. Can the Attorney describe what the method or way of service is in relation to underground land acquisition? How is it notified? How are people notified of their rights or obligations as distinct from what happens in the rest of the act?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Later on in the bill, the introduction of the provision for new 26F will set out acquisition of underground land. Firstly, it provides:

(1) The Authority may, at any time, publish a notice of acquisition of underground land in the Gazette.

That is the first notice. On publication of the notice, it is required to do certain things. That sets out step by step what is required to be done.

Ms STINSON: Is that the sum total of it?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 7 inserts a new obligation to notify the authority of other interests in land. New section 10A—Obligation to notify authority, provides:

(1) An owner of land to whom a notice of intention to acquire the land is given must, no later than 14 days—

this is another requirement the government is placing on the landowner—

after receiving the notice, notify the Authority of—

(a) any other person who, to the person's knowledge, has an interest in the land; and

(b) the nature of that person's interest.

Other than the registered—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: Attorney, I do not think the member for West Torrens has finished his question yet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Other than the registered owner of the land, why is the government placing another burden on landowners to inform the government of further information, and how does the government define 'interests in land' in this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is presumed here that the owner of the land is the person most likely to know of people who have an interest, either because they have signed them up as a tenant, for example, and have a residential tenancies agreement, or a commercial tenant. They have it registered on the title if it is a commercial tenant. They also may know that they have offered a facility on a regular basis for somebody to access the property and utilise it with or without rent. So there may be some more informal occupancy, which is not registered on a lease or is not part of a residential tenancies agreement but which has occurred over a period of time.

For that purpose, it is important, as was evident in the select committee inquiry, that these people also be able to have notice because they may, as a tenant of some kind, have a right of entitlement to solatium or some other benefit. Only the landlord, the owner of the property, really has any information about that. So if DPTI are going to have a responsibility, for example, in the logical circumstance of making sure that anyone who might have a lawful claim gets to know that they may lodge a claim, then they need to know who they are. That is why it is there: to make sure that people who might have a claim at least have notice and they can get advice about whether they are going to pursue anything themselves.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In terms of the compensation or solatium that the government has talked about, is the same amount available per property or per interest in the land? For example, given the 10 per cent or $50,000 figure, is that available per property or per interest in a property?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That applies to an owner-occupier, and it is their principal place of residence. It may be 10 people or it may be one, but each gets the right to that claim.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that it is up to a maximum for that to be each, but remember that they have to be the lawful tenant. The people who get notice are in the definition of the act, which provides:

interest in land means—

(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; or

(b) an easement, right, power, or privilege in, under, over, affecting, or in connection with, the land; or

(c) native title in the land;

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The minister asked this question about a mum and dad who are the owner-occupiers. They share the $50,000. They have six kids, but they are not the owner-occupiers. They live in the property, but they do not get to share it individually; the owner-occupiers share it. If there is another tenant in the property at the same time, then they have a different entitlement, potentially, but that is a different matter altogether and they do not get the same benefit as an owner-occupier.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What if the principal place of residence is also a business, where one of the partners has a hairdressing salon in the garage that is approved by council and perfectly legal? They own the property and they are paid the solatium. Is the registered owner, who is also the same person as the legal owner of the land on the title, entitled to a separate payment or is there only one payment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So that I have this clear, we have the same scenario of a couple who are occupying a property. They operate a business from it and also live in it. Is that the scenario you are putting to me? Do they have a right to share, as owner-occupiers, a compensation payment plus their solatium; is that the question?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Just to be clear, let's say, for example, partner A is on the title as the owner and is married. Partner B has a licensed business on the property and a lease with a partner. Are there two separate payments, or do they share the one?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Hence, we go back to that scenario. If they occupy the property as their principal place of residence and they are going to be moved on, they can make an application for the solatium payment. If there is a business that is being interrupted as part of a compensation claim, then that would be part of their claim; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes. So do they both get two payments?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, they still share the one payment. If only the husband operates the business but they are owner-occupiers and reside in the property together, that is where I think the complication is coming in. Is that what you are suggesting?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In that instance, as a couple, they are the owner-occupiers in relation to the solatium. In relation to the business, which only he owns but operates from there, he gets the compensation payment as the business loss because he is the only owner of it.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Member for West Torrens, your fourth question on clause 7?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I do not mean to be difficult on this—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I am sorry, member for West Torrens, you have had three questions on clause 7—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are not letting me ask another question?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I am saying it is your fourth question on clause 7.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Congratulations.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): On clause 7, member for Badcoe—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are going to be here all night.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): That is great.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You are here five minutes and look how you are behaving.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I was being polite and I was—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, you were not being polite; you were being a smart arse.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Member for West Torrens! Member for Badcoe, do you have a question?

Ms STINSON: I do, sir. My question goes to an issue that I raised in my second reading contribution, which is around bores. I realise that the Attorney is seeking some advice about this, but I just want to get it on the record so that a response does come back. This section obviously deals with an obligation to notify an authority of other interests in the land. For a resident who has a bore, would that include notifying about the bore?

I understand that SA Water would actually be the owner of the bore. Would it be up to the government to do its own record check and determine any SA Water or government-related interests on a piece of land? I ask that because a resident may well be aware of a bore, but there is obviously a penalty connected with this, which is $5,000. A person may find themselves liable if, for example, they make the assumption that the government would already be aware of such an interest as a bore and they neglected to pay that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I indicated—and all of this is on the record, so I do not need to repeat it, but I will for the sake of the member for Badcoe—the question of interruption to a bore, which is access to water essentially by the landowner, is a matter we are getting further advice on, and she will be advised as soon as we have that information.

I think it is fair to say that what is important here is that, if there is a structure underground like a bore and there is equipment there—remembering here that the equipment there is being stored at the cost of the landowner usually or the property has been acquired with that particular amenity on it, and assuming that the owner knows that it is there, because otherwise there has to be some reasonable excuse if they do not know—they are obliged under this proposal to give notice to the authority that it exists.

Ms STINSON: Even if it is a government asset?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member says, 'Even if it is a government asset?' but it is another person's interest.

Ms STINSON: Is a person the government or SA Water?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think you will see that it states 'any other person who, to the person's knowledge, has an interest in the land'. I am assuming that would be the minister, whether it is via SA Water, the Department for Environment or some other agency, and that is why we need to be clear about that obligation. Bear in mind that if the owner of the land did not even know that it existed, did not ever use it or did not know that it was even in the back of the garden, they would have a reasonable excuse not to pursue it, which is made provision for in this.

It will depend a bit on ultimately if a tunnel is dug and where it will be, whether it traverses the infrastructure that is part of the bore or whether it interrupts the flow of the water to be able to access the bore. In other words, the bore is still sitting there but the tunnel is over there and once it is there it interferes with the flow for the access to the bore and the bore needs to be either higher or lower to get access to water, for example. These are all the sorts of things we will have to have a look at in relation to what amenity that represents—who owns it, who has an interest in it and what compensation, if any, should be paid for it. They are the things we obviously need to have a look at.

It may be that ultimately the water flow is not interrupted and that the bore can be accessed from another point—that is, the water can be accessed from another point—and that may need to be done to access the same entitlement to water, in which case there would be an infrastructure cost, a redrilling cost, etc. So it depends on what the interruption is going to be to affect that underground access, for want of a better word, to the water supply they are purporting to be able to continue to be entitled to.

Ms STINSON: From that, I take it that the Attorney is saying that, if a person had a SA Water bore on their land, that would be taken under this section to be another person, possibly being the minister who is responsible for SA Water. The concern I have is that there is a penalty of $5,000 attached to this. I do not necessarily think that all or indeed many of my constituents would necessarily realise that under this clause they needed to inform the government of a government asset that is on their land. Therefore, my concern is that they may fall foul of this in failing to notify in the circumstance where they are aware that there is a bore on their land.

I wonder if the Attorney can inform the house whether the concern that I have is a real one and, if so, how she proposes to address a circumstance where someone, maybe in all good faith, does not realise that under this they are obligated to inform the government of a government asset, such as a SA Water bore?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: A penalty of $5,000 applies to a person who is found to have without reasonable excuse refused or failed to comply—that is, to notify—and I think it is important to identify 'without reasonable excuse'. I am advised that under this process the notice that is given and the information that is provided to that person will include the obligation to notify of any other party's interest on the land, so that will be quite prescriptive.

The inadvertence in perhaps having read that notice may be sufficient to allow the reasonable excuse to be applied, and that is why it is there. Obviously a strict liability would not be fair. It is important that notice be given, but it is also important that we accommodate a circumstance where even when notice has been given and they have not acted, if it is without reasonable excuse, that they be in a way relieved of the offence and/or the penalty.

One thing that is important here is that the landowner and/or occupier—because sometimes they may or may not occupy that land that they own—is really the only person again who is familiar with what is actually on their property, and this is why, again, it is up to the landowner to let the authority know what is there on their property that needs to be taken into account. It is a bit late once the bore is there and the tunnelling starts burrowing through it, and they smash the bore to pieces, to say, 'Well, I didn't know it was there.' If they knew it was there, and it had been brought to their attention that they needed to report that, and they do not, and they do not have a reasonable excuse, then they are going to be liable to prosecution which could result in a fine of up to $5,000.

Ms STINSON: I make the point that the type of circumstance that I am concerned about is that there are quite a number of bores across the electorate of Badcoe—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Ms STINSON: Yes, I am sure they are all over the place. Indeed, the Attorney makes a good point. I suppose our community is particularly aware of where they are because there have been EPA notifications to people about bores, which I know is a circumstance that has occurred in the western suburbs and other places as well. Having visited many of those people and door-knocked them, I am aware that many of those people with those bores are migrants mainly from Greece and Italy, older people who would not necessarily have the wherewithal to understand the legislation or may not be able to get across notices that are given.

I am encouraged by the Attorney saying that some sort of written notice would be given to people to alert them to this, and from what you are saying, it sounds like some inadvertent failure to advise would not necessarily automatically trigger a fine or a conviction under this section, so I am pleased to hear that if I have understood that correctly.

My final question is around payment, for example, for an interruption to a bore facility. The Attorney touched on that previously in terms of how access may be restricted to the bore or indeed it may be the subject of destruction by any tunnelling that goes on. Is there any light that the Attorney can shed on who would pay for any costs incurred or how compensation would occur with a landholder, considering that there is no compensation under the new section for underground land acquisition?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Again, this is why it is important that we get the correct advice on how compensation applies, if it applies at all in these circumstances. On the face of it, the structure underground is not compensatable if it is interrupted. As I was saying, it may damage the stalk of the bore, it may damage pumping lines or it may damage or interfere with the water flow that gives access to the bore.

At the moment, on reading the bill, that would not be compensatable. Whether in fact there is an entitlement that flows from the fact that there is an above-ground facility as part of this bore, which may be infrastructure as part of a bore—pumps and things that go with it—which does attract it, I do not know. That is why we are getting some advice on that aspect and whether it might interrupt it.

I suppose to some degree, it would be a bit like having a driveway, which goes onto a road, and there is a development of some kind, a road, a bridge or whatever that does not allow you entry onto that road, so you cannot get off your property. That is the sort of situation where we may need to look at how we are going to make provision for infrastructure or amenity on a property that is going to be interrupted from its usual use. Does that make it clear? That is what I am looking for and I am assuming that is what you are looking for on behalf of your constituents.

As to those who are receiving a notice via registered mail, which looks like an official document and says to them, 'We are giving you notice that we are going to take your house,' and nicely lists out all the things they are supposed to do, obviously, I do not doubt that would be confronting to most people. Read the select committee report. They are pretty clear about that. I think that would be a bit concerning and confronting for someone with limited language skills, who might not be sure about even the reading of it in English, and I am sure that would not be confined just to those from Italian and Greek backgrounds but anyone who may have some difficulty with understanding that.

I think it is a process that we need to take into account and that is why it is really important that we have in the bill provision for that person to be able to get up-front advice and be able to look at data that is available to DPTI—valuations and the like—be able to access their own professional advice for valuation or assessment, and be able to have that up-front so that they can be properly informed and advised as to what their entitlements are. That is why the bill and that portion of the bill is terribly important. It is hard enough for people with English as their first language, who can read and who are quite literate.

I think the member for Badcoe would understand that when she has constituents come to her and say, 'I have tried to deal with a government agency. I can't get through on the phone. I don't understand what they have sent me.' It is frustrating enough for the average person. For someone with a language impediment, I imagine it would be extremely confronting, especially if their whole life is invested in a property that they currently occupy as their home.

I think we need to make sure that we have it as clear as possible what the impost is going to be on this person—namely, the threat of their home being acquired—and avail them of every possible resource to make sure that they clearly understand, with professional help and advice, what their obligations are and what their entitlements are. That is the object of the bill.

Ms STINSON: Especially if they might face a fine.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In relation to other amenities or interests of another party on their property, it is not just water bores. There may be someone else who has built a shed on the property, which they are entitled to come and pick up. Do you see what I mean? There could be other property that is movable—vehicles and the like—on the property. These are the sorts of things that I think we need to be clear about, with them disclosing to the relevant authority what is there, what they think is there and what they reasonably expect to know is there.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Regarding the right to object, the government is giving SACAT an extra seven days to make their deliberations on an appeal but giving no extra time to people who have an interest in the subject land to contact SACAT. I find it an interesting distinction that the government are giving SACAT a longer period of time to consider these matters but not giving interested parties a longer period of time to contact SACAT to register an appeal or a grievance. I would have thought that the government are interested in the rights of landowners and people who are interested parties. I assume or hope they are. Section 12 of the current act provides:

(1) A person who has an interest in the subject land may within 30 days after notice of intention to acquire the land is given or, if an explanation of the reasons for the acquisition is required, within 30 days after the explanation was provided, by written notice—

(a) request the Authority not to proceed with the acquisition of the subject land; or

(b) request an alteration in the boundaries of the subject land; or

(c) request that a particular part of the subject land be not acquired, or that further land be acquired.

That is, they take the whole thing, rather than just parts of it and make it unproductive. This act then goes on to the right of review, and then we get to the section that refers to SACAT. The part that is being amended refers to section 12A(3): 'The Tribunal must complete its proceedings on a review within 14 days,' yet the government is giving it an extra seven days. I would have thought that the appropriate thing to do here would be to give people more time to prepare an objection to SACAT.

I am sure that 30 days has worked. To be fair, I have not checked the select committee to see whether or not there is a recommendation for it to be longer than 30 days. However, given that the Attorney has assured the house that the amendment bill and the select committee are identical, I wonder whether 30 days is enough time to brief, get briefed, understand what your rights are, understand what your objections are, talk to your business partners, talk to interested parties and then go to SACAT with your objections.

Obviously, there are a number of hypothetical scenarios that could be envisaged by the right to object. The government could be acquiring one piece of land and somebody could be taking up the option. The government whip, the member for Hammond, talked about a proposed acquisition between shearing sheds and yards, and obviously that would have made that entire land redundant. So you would give an opportunity for the landowner to say, 'Take the whole thing because you are making my land unworkable.' The government is saying, 'Your right to review that is within 30 days from the date of notice of acquisition.'

Ms Stinson: It is 21.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is it 20 or 30?

Ms Stinson: It is 21 that they are proposing.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, they are proposing a 21-day period for SACAT to consider the review, but the time to notify SACAT is 30 days. Given we are giving SACAT extra time, I would have thought that the government would turn its mind to giving those people subject to acquisition more time to prepare their case for SACAT. I would imagine that 30 days means 30 business days, so that is a bit longer, but it might not be. I hope the Attorney can answer that for me. The first point of my question is: does 30 days mean 30 business days, or is it 30 physical days, including weekends?

Secondly, did the government consider increasing the time to, say, 45 days or 35 days, or making it 30 business days, if necessary? Was the decision on the requirement for SACAT to make its final review within 21 days made on the basis of a request from SACAT, or was it something that came out of the review?

I am interested to know whether or not the Deputy Premier consulted with SACAT on this very provision, whether the tribunal got back to the Attorney-General with a point of view and whether any additional resources had been allocated to SACAT for this additional referral.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for West Torrens previously indicated that he had made a request for a marked-up copy of a bill, which had not been provided. I want to advise the house that at 12.16pm yesterday, on 14 October, an email was sent to the member for West Torrens incorporating not just the marked up act with the inclusion of the bill but also a proposed amendment, talking points and the parliamentary committee report, which is referred to as the select committee report, for his consideration.

There was an explanation in the email that the proposed amendment was to accommodate a clarification that native title cannot be extinguished without compensation. I just place that on the record as to the four items, together with an explanation of clauses, which makes it five, that were emailed to him yesterday.

In relation to section 12, the various time frames have been raised, including the 30-day obligation, on the right to object. There has been no complaint about that, and so there has not been any amendment to that. That remains. This amendment deals with the 14 days moving to 21 days. As I have previously stated, that was specifically at the request of SACAT, who were on the consultation list. They did indicate that they would need some extra time. My recollection is that the Crown Solicitor's Office also indicated that there needed to be extra time.

My understanding is that there was a request that it be along the lines of 'as soon as practicable', as distinct from 14 days, but for certainty for the claimant it was important that there be a time frame on it. The time has been extended to accommodate a request of SACAT, bearing in mind that the former Attorney-General removed the review process of a minister and transferred that, via a bill in this parliament, to SACAT. At the time, he just left the 14 days. SACAT now have responsibility. They have not yet, as I understand it, received an application or dealt with one of these issues, but they are alerting to us, via the consultation process, that they need more time, and that is exactly what this amendment does.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I thank the Attorney-General for clarifying that her staff did send that to me. I apologise to her staff, if they are listening, for my error, but I had not seen it. I take the word of the Attorney-General that it was sent at 12.16. I accept that, but I have not yet seen it. If the Attorney-General says that her staff did that, I believe her, but I will check when I get back to my office.

I do find it interesting, given the Attorney's explanation, that there was no complaint about the 30-day period to lodge a right of appeal. I find it interesting that no-one has complained.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I know; you said that. You have told the parliament quite emphatically that there has been no complaint whatsoever about a 30-day right of appeal. Given we are considering the time it takes to lodge an appeal, I would have thought that perhaps 30 days might not be sufficient, but I accept what the Attorney is saying. However, this is probably a matter that we will consider between the houses and may even consider amendments in the upper house to give people a longer period of time to lodge an appeal in SACAT.

I know this bill is not just about the north-south corridor but, given the demographics of the people along the north-south corridor, I would have thought it might be prudent perhaps to give them a longer period of time, but I accept that the Attorney says she has received not one single complaint about the 30-day time frame. I think it might be prudent to extend that by a few days, just to make sure that people have the opportunity to brief someone and get some advice before you attend SACAT and make your objections. SACAT making their determination within 21 days or 14 days I assume is about limiting the time SACAT have to consider this. It is all about—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have to give an answer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That they have to give an answer, yes; it just cannot be indefinite. We want to get on with the project, give people certainty and, hopefully, let them move on. If SACAT made representations to the Attorney-General, I would assume that they may have asked for more than 21 days, if I know how these bodies work.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: To be clear about that, I just said that what they said was we would seek that it would be words to the effect that it be provided as soon as practicable; however, to look at the certainty for the claimant on the advice also from the Crown Solicitor's Office to marry this up, we needed, yes, some extra time, but look at that being 21 days.

We have had no indication from SACAT having set that time as something that is a fair balance. In other words, you are there to make decisions on administrative decisions. It has moved from a minister and it has come across to SACAT. Justice Hughes, of course, would put back to us, 'We've got no chance of accommodating that,' but that has not been the case, so we are satisfied that she understands what her obligation is—to get her tribunal to provide that—and in my experience it is a tribunal doing exactly what it was supposed to do: prompt, accessible determinations of civilian or administrative decisions that need to be addressed expeditiously and they do it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I had not finished asking my question when the Attorney stood up.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): That is fine, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As I suspected, the 21-day solution is not SACAT's recommendation: it is an invention of the Attorney, which is fine, nothing wrong with that, but to claim that SACAT wanted 21 days is not accurate.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did not say that—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I did not say you did. It is alright, calm down.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Is there a question here, member for West Torrens?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a 15-minute explanation of my question, yes, sir. SACAT have asked for as reasonable as practicable and the government has decided that means an extension of seven days. Again, between the houses, the opposition gives notice that perhaps the 21 days is not sufficient, and we will consult with SACAT.

SACAT might decide it is inappropriate to consult with the opposition about this matter but, given the answer the Attorney has given us, I suspect that what they are looking for is an answer to be able to report—given that, yes, they are not a judicial body but a tribunal—to give them a bit more judicial independence, perhaps maybe as soon as practicable could be a very good compromise and perhaps we could put in a time no longer than six months, or no longer than four months, or three months, or two months, or whatever it might be.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I am on the side of the judges. I am always on the side of the judges and the lawyers.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): On the side of the angels, member for West Torrens. If there is a question here, I would love to hear it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And you will.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We are all imperfect sinners. I know that I am not as perfect as you or as smart as you or as learned as you.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I think the Attorney meant a judge not a saint.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A judge not a saint, yes. I think, given the Attorney's answer, the question I will be getting to in a moment is about how the Attorney came to the 21 days, given the answer she received from the consultation with SACAT, which was, from what I have been able to gather from the remarks of the Attorney to the parliament, that SACAT asked for as much time as they needed but they would make sure that it would be reasonable. That seems reasonable to me.

SACAT is a very efficient tribunal. I think they do their work expeditiously. I am not sure that I have seen any evidence of SACAT taking an unduly long time. Obviously we want an end to this and we want an end point but, given that their submission was not 21 days but a longer time frame, I would be interested to know how the Attorney came to 21 days. Why was it 21 days, not 28 days, or not the same 30 days that proponents are given to register their complaint or go to SACAT?

I think what we do not want to have happen here is a cookie cutter approach to land acquisition, because every case is different. Given that every case is different, especially with the diversity of land acquisitions that the government is involved in, especially when it comes to businesses, farms or whatever it might be, perhaps SACAT cannot develop a cookie cutter approach to appeals and may need a longer time to investigate and deliberate on these matters as a tribunal.

Perhaps this is an interesting insight into how consultation works with the government. SACAT writes back to the government saying, 'We want more time.' How much time? 'Well, as much as is reasonably practicable for us to determine this.' The government says, 'Okay, we decide that's 21 days.' That is not consultation. That is deciding, 'I am giving you an extra seven days and that's as good as it is going to get.'

If that is the consultation that has occurred with SACAT, I now understand why the government has not consulted the Property Council and Business SA on these matters: (1) it would have been redundant and they would not have listened, and (2) the government was not really interested in dealing with their needs. I have to say that I am not quite sure that forcing SACAT to make these decisions quickly is in anyone's interests, other than those of the proponents of the road project, which is the government.

Given that we are deliberating on an amendment bill, the aims and objectives of which, we are told, are to improve the lot of people whose land is being acquired, this seems in stark contrast to those objectives. It seems that it is in contrast to the objectives of the parent act, which states that we do everything here on just terms. So, 21 days is an improvement on 14 days, no doubt, but I do not think it represents the outcome of the consultation that the Deputy Premier did but, to give her credit, I understand what her thinking is here.

My second question to the Attorney-General on this clause is: how did you come to 21 days? Has SACAT responded in any way to the 21 days to advise the government that that is sufficient? If they have not written back objecting, is that taken as implicit consent for 21 days, or has the relationship so deteriorated between the Deputy Premier and SACAT that we cannot even get them talking to each other about amendments to the bill? Not that I can imagine the Deputy Premier in any way putting anyone off in her conversations with them, because I am such an amenable person.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, in relation to the review process, I just confirm that the 14 days to 21 days specifically relate to the obligation of SACAT to provide an answer, their determination. There are a whole lot of other times before it which were quite prescriptive: seven days, 14 days, etc. Remember here, as we have—and we hope the opposition will consider this when they look at whether they just open up this to six months, whenever it is timely, some other longer period, or open-ended proposal—that the claimant is waiting to have their case dealt with.

What has happened so far in this scenario is that DPTI have served notice of their intent. There has been an objection lodged maybe because they say that this is exempt land, the boundaries need to be different, or there is different property that needs to be taken into account, and therefore that issue needs to be determined. DPTI say, 'No, we are pressing ahead.' They want this reviewed. A minister used to do this. The former attorney-general, the member for Croydon, now a—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank goodness it was a long time ago. He decided that he would ask SACAT to do this job. He came to the parliament, and the parliament supported it and left it at 14 days. SACAT have been consulted. Justice Hughes in particular, who is the head of SACAT, whom I meet with regularly and have discussions with about her role and take her advice on a number of matters, has sought some flexibility in this regard.

As I have said I think several times, and I hope this is really clear now, having considered that request and taken into account the Crown Solicitor's Office to seek to have some finality with this, and the interest of the claimant, who frankly does not want to be sitting around on this for six months, they want to be able to have the determination, this decision of DPTI, overturned. They want that decision and they do not want to be hanging around for it.

We respect that. We think that is important. Therefore, when the opposition listen to the advice of the member for West Torrens on whatever amendments he wants to put up on this, I just ask them to please consider that we are trying to reach a balance here that does not ride roughshod over the claimant, the person who is sitting there in the house, who has received a notice and wants to take reasonable objection and wants this proper process. Please, do not interfere with that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will not raise a matter of contempt—telling members of parliament they cannot raise amendments, because we can and I will.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I do not think the Attorney said that. Please, your next question, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, my next question will need a certain level of preamble.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I appreciate that, and it is allowed under standing orders.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it is—God bless them. Given the Attorney's recent answer about the poor old landowner who is having their land acquired by DPTI wanting closure very, very quickly, I also think that the poor old landowner would want to know that the body that is deciding the fate of their objection has considerable time in which to hear all the arguments.

The state has the power of this parliament and this act to turn up and say, 'We are building a road through your land and were taking your land. We've got funding for it from the government. We are proceeding. This is the route we want. These are the engineers' reports to say this is the route we want. This is why we want this route, and you have 30 days to convince SACAT to make a decision in 21 days that the government is wrong.' I think this is not about putting anyone out of their misery: it is about making sure that justice or fairness is accorded to everyone, given that the state is acquiring land that is not for sale. That is the difference: not for sale.

A small history lesson: the Labor Party nearly split on land ownership in the 1920s because there was a cohort of people in the Labor Party who did not believe in the right to own private property. One of the reasons we have conservatives and progressives is over private property ownership. There is nothing more fundamental in democracies in terms of wealth creation and—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Chair: I think the history of the 1920s and the Labor Party's position and what their decisions were on how they might affiliate is really stretching the relevance to this bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Thank you, Attorney. Whilst I am a great studier of politics, and I was waiting for the 1955 revisitation of the DLP split, I think the Attorney has a very valid point of order. If the member for West Torrens could continue his preamble relevant to the bill in front of us—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Fair to say that in the 1955 split the wrong side one.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): —we can continue.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I just flag now to the government, given the Attorney-General’s pleas, that I will be consulting on amendments to increase the time for SACAT to consider these matters. I also want closure. I also want it to be done in a timely way. I also think that there should be a conclusion to this process. I can flag to the committee that potential amendments that we will consider between the houses will be extending the time period that someone has to make an application for an objection to SACAT and the amount of time SACAT have to consider that.

I am not going to be saying I want extraordinary amounts of time, but I think a reasonable consultation period and a reasonable amount of consideration between the houses could probably see the crossbench and the opposition come up with an amendment that I hope the government sees favourably to pass on its return to the House of Assembly.

The question then becomes: when Crown law advised the Attorney-General on 21 days, what did they have in consideration as precedent from other dispute resolution mechanisms that are standard throughout South Australia? Are there other forms of dispute resolution that have a standard protocol of 21 days from complaint to outcome? The ICAC has no such requirement. The OPI has no such requirement. The courts, the OPI, and the ICAC are tribunals. The OPI, on considering a complaint, does not have a time frame of 14 or 21 days to make a decision.

Are there any other tribunals, other than SACAT in their considering of land acquisition, where 21 days is the standard? That is the test that the government needs to pass on this clause, I think—not because their aims of having a conclusion are not right. The question becomes: are 21 days enough? I would like to hear from SACAT. I would like to know what SACAT's views are on whether or not 21 days are enough.

I am sure that in some matters that SACAT considers on this, 21 days are sufficient. I am sure 14 days would have been sufficient, but I imagine there would be more complex arguments for SACAT to consider where there are multiple interested parties, where there are some parties that wish to sell and others that do not and where there are multiple layers of an argument that is put to SACAT that might take more than 21 days to sort out. Yet SACAT is being limited by legislation in terms of making its decision.

If I made a complaint about the Attorney-General to the OPI, the OPI does not have a time frame of 21 days to get back to me to let me know, 'Yes, we think there's something here,' or 'No, there isn't.' They will work in their own time frames. So, in terms of tribunals, 21 days seems like a number plucked out of the air. Twenty-one days does not seem to be some sort of standard procedure that the government thinks is appropriate, and I do not think there is any formula to it either.

So I think a bit of discretion by SACAT could be useful. Perhaps an alternative may be 21 days unless there is some overwhelming matter of importance that SACAT needs to consider, and they could seek ministerial permission to continue their deliberations longer if the head of SACAT thinks this is a complex case that needs more than 21 days to consider. But I think taking away that discretion is a problem. So I would ask the Attorney-General, in the 10 minutes that we have remaining—because I know that the member for Badcoe has some questions on this clause as well—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Oh, good.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, absolutely.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Hers will be much more sensible.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There it is. There is that charm offensive again.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Attorney, we are doing so well with nine minutes left. We have to read a message from the upper house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is no problem for the committee: it is a problem for the house. If the committee does not want to read the notice, it does not have to.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): The house will want to read the notice.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the committee wants to read the notice it can move so. The committee is debating clause 7, and clause 7 is about—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Clause 8, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 8, is it? I forgot to cross out clause 7. Thank you very much. It is all on the 21 days, so I would ask: where did the 21 days come from in Crown law? Did the Attorney-General question the benefit of 21 days as opposed to a discretion, which is obviously what SACAT wanted? What is the problem with the discretion? Given the head of SACAT is a very well-respected jurist, surely a discretion could be trusted with SACAT to make these decisions, and surely the Attorney believes that the head of SACAT would have the ability to determine these matters and expedite them as needed?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think there is some confusion at this point about the length of the investigation, inquiry and adjudication that is to be made. All we are talking about at this stage of the notice, objection, determination of an administrative decision to reject that, is very much confined to what is in the act—not the valuation and not the disputed hearing that might end up in the Supreme Court about what compensation is to be made, etc., and to whom and what parties get a share and so on.

This is a discrete area, which is transferred from a minister who had an obligation to provide that within 14 days to the previous government suggesting that transfer to SACAT and leaving it at 14 days. Now, when we are opening the bill, a request coming from SACAT, advice from CSO given as well, consideration of the claimant's desire obviously to have his or her objection heard expeditiously are all matters that have culminated in advice back to me via this bill as a compromise at 21 days.

I do not know why there had not been objection by previous SACATs, if this occurred before Justice Hughes' time, or whether there had been an expectation that, if a minister could do it in 14 days, then there is no reason why somebody in SACAT should not be able to do it in 14 days, but if you need extra time, 21 days. I have not had any indication that this is such a major problem, but I hope that makes it clearer. We are attempting to take into account the request, the advice received and the consideration of the claimant as a worthy compromise to be accepted.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

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