HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Land Acquisition (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2019.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:41): I rise as the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition in regard to this bill. The Land Acquisition Act 1969 establishes a process for the acquisition of land by acquiring authorities. Land is generally acquired to accommodate for various road and infrastructure projects; for example, the Torrens to Torrens upgrade and the Northern Connector. Both are recent, significant infrastructure projects that have required the acquisition of land by government.

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

This bill has been drafted in order to implement recommendations made by the 2017 parliamentary select committee, which examined the compulsory acquisition processes for properties acquired for the Torrens to Torrens project. The Hon. Mr Darley from this place, I understand, was the chairperson of that committee and was heavily involved and invested in that committee. The committee identified a number of areas where improvements could be made to the act to improve the process and the outcomes for DPTI, but also for landowners and for other parties with interest in the land.

The bill also introduces amendments proposed by DPTI and by the Crown Solicitor's Office to remedy some issues that frequently arise during land acquisitions and to clarify uncertainties in the law relating to underground acquisitions. I will return to that aspect shortly.

Some of the recommendations that the select committee made for legislative change included a solatium payment of up to 10 per cent of market value of the land to owner-occupiers if it is their primary residence to compensate for having to find, purchase and move into a new home. Currently, of course, non-financial loss is not compensable.

I would imagine that all of us could understand how there really should be something in terms of compensation, because it involves not just the inconvenience of moving into a new home but also the emotional impact of having to do so, particularly if it is a home that has been held in one's family for a long time or with which one has an emotional commitment, as many of us do, not simply looking at our home as four walls and a place to live.

The inclusion of a solatium payment will increase the amount of compensation landowners could be entitled to. It is expected that this payment will also lead to a quicker resolution of claims and reduce the legal fees for both parties, something which one would hope would be beneficial to all. Other recommendations included requiring both the landowner and DPTI to act in good faith throughout the acquisition process and allowing an allowance of $10,000 payable in advance for professional costs relating to the acquisition, which could include things such as legal fees or valuation costs, to assist landowners; 'in advance' is an important part of that.

It also requires a compulsory settlement conference before compensation proceedings can be commenced. The cost of that settlement conference would be borne by DPTI and paid by DPTI, which again is an important progression to ensure that those who are subject to this process can get the best outcomes. It is expected that this would lead to faster resolution of compensation claims and also reduce the legal fees involved for all.

Other amendments recommended by DPTI and the Crown Solicitor's Office included legislating an existing DPTI policy—so it is policy at the moment, but this is in the legislation—so that stamp duty, lands titles office fees and transfer fees associated with buying a new residential property will be paid by DPTI. Stamp duty will also be payable to owners of investment properties if certain conditions are met.

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

There are also changes to the way DPTI determines rent to be paid by claimants if they remain on the land after the expiration of the three-month grace period. The rent, however, must not exceed acceptable market rent for the property. It is expected that this would decrease the disputes over rent amounts, again a worthy outcome that I imagine we could all support. There is a range of other amendments to improve the compensation negotiation process between the parties and to reduce administrative costs and legal costs.

We then move to underground acquisitions, where the act will be amended to provide that compensation will not be payable for underground acquisitions because, we are told, landowners will not lose the use or enjoyment of their land. This is an issue which the opposition believes needs to have further clarification. It is not clear how 'underground' will be defined. It is not clear what the process will be if landowners do in fact lose some of the use or enjoyment of their land. For example, if 'underground' is considered a certain depth below one's property, where are we measuring from? Are we measuring from the foundations of the building? Are we measuring from the cellar? Are we measuring from the bottom of the roots of the trees in the backyard? There needs to be further clarity around what that actually means.

I understand that our colleagues in the other place requested a large number of pieces of information in order to clarify a number of aspects with regard to this bill but unfortunately have not received the information or have not received adequate information, which is why the opposition still holds some concerns with regard to this aspect of the bill. We are told that this bill will bring South Australia into line with the position in New South Wales and Western Australia; however, Victoria is still looking into it.

The underground acquisitions are of concern. The opposition in general supports this bill, but because we believe a number of issues have not been adequately clarified or adequately addressed, we are certainly looking at some other potential changes and further discussion if those clarifications are not made.

I will at this stage flag some possible amendments, and some amendments have already been moved by other members in this place which the Labor opposition is keen to examine further and then consider. We look forward to further debate on this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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