Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 15 May 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I was not sure whether I was hearing the minister accurately, but were there signs of the government caving in, or was it my misinterpretation of the words spoken? The blunt question is whether the government will protest and call for a division on the amendment, but that question can remain in the air for the moment.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: No; the fault is all mine. I could not follow the thread of the argument, and maybe I just missed the last sentence or two. I know you engaged the Attorney-General as a counterpoint to your position at one stage, saying that if he had his way you would be opposed to all retrospective legislation. There was a modification of that, and the conclusion of your remarks was that members had probably heard enough, which may have been the truest thing you said. I find the issue difficult for me personally, in so far as there is no way it can be devoid of implications in terms of Barton Road. As someone who has a profound interest in the parklands, the actual return of any area to the parklands has always been such a precious achievement that I have been very nervous of putting it at risk. I am sure I had the same concerns when this matter was addressed previously. In fact, if possible, the Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association would like to see moves to reduce the number of roads which lacerate the parklands rather than opening up another one, as is a possibility through passing this amendment of the Hon. Nick Xenophon.

I will read to the committee a letter I received dated 10 April this year from the Local Government Association. The part that is relevant reads:

The LGA supports the Statutes Amendment (Local Government) Bill. Our views on two amendments to the bill are as follows:

The first is to clause 13, which is the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Diana Laidlaw. It takes no exception to that and support it. The second is the repeal of section 359 of the Local Government Act 1934 and the insertion of new clause 24A-`Certain road closures to cease to have effect'-to be moved by the Hon. Nick Xenophon MLC. The letter states:

As an in principle position the LGA does not support legislation that is to apply retrospectively. We are concerned that the amendment may have broader, unintended consequences. To partially minimise this and in consultation with the Hon. Nick Xenophon MLC, we have sought a new subclause be added to 24A as follows:

· this section does not apply to any road closure which has been the subject of a decision under s.721 of the Local Government Act 1934.

This would exclude the Silkes Road Ford, which has already been subject of the formal review process conducted by Judge Iris Stevens, who was appointed by the Minister for Local Government.

It goes on to indicate that the repeal of section 359 would have the problem which has already been referred to and which involves advertising at great expense in two papers. The LGA has proposed that the requirement for a notice to be published in a newspaper circulating throughout the state in addition to the local paper apply only when the temporary road closure proposed would exceed a specified period of time- say, 24 hours-or, in the opinion of the council, the road closure would have wider implications than for the local community or visitors to the region.

The LGA has previously raised these concerns with the Hon. Diana Laidlaw MLC, Minister for Transport and Urban Planning. Then there is an encouragement for me to support those positions. It is signed by Brian Clancy, Director, Environment and Legislation. So, the position I find myself in is that I can understand what I think is the inconsistency of the original intention, of section 359, which was arguably for a temporary road closure.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I ignore most interjections, including that one. It is not helpful. I realise that if I were really persecuted you would protect me, would you not, sir? The extended closure of Barton and Silkes Roads certainly makes a mockery of that intention. Therefore, it is with some anguish that, in principle, I must support the amendment. I was hoping to get some indication from the Adelaide City Council as to its intention if this amendment was successful and the current feeling within the council as regards the continued closure of Barton Road. Unfortunately, I was unable to get through to either the Lord Mayor or the Deputy Lord Mayor.

My leader, Mike Elliott, rang the Lord Mayor, who got in touch with me while this debate was going on. He said he had no knowledge of this debate, no knowledge that this amendment was before the Council and, therefore, no idea that it would have any impact on Barton Road. So he therefore could not say, in any informative way, what the council attitude would be. So, there appears to have been a lack of communication between some channel or another. If they have a capital city committee, which was vaunted as promoting this wonderful interchange of information between the government and the-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It may not be your amendment, but I would have thought that a responsible government would take some account of an amendment moved by a very significant MLC. So, how is it that the meeting of this capital city committee could have evolved to this crisis point-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: -with the future of both Barton Road and the member in the other place, Mick Atkinson, being intertwined, and it hangs on the cusp of an issue that the Adelaide City Council could easily have been involved in lobbying for. But, no, they have been denied that opportunity, for which I am very sorry, because I think that it is important that we know how they feel about it. In summary, Mr Chairman-because I know that you are not sick of hearing what I have to say, but I will now stop-I find myself in the position of having to support the amendment but fervently hoping that it does not result in the reopening of Barton Road across the parklands.