The applicants submitted that the acquisition of their land was unnecessary because the Commissioner owns land on the other side of the road. They also argued that there are significant trees on their property which will be affected by the acquisition, as well as their livestock, water supply and native fauna on the property. They also submitted that there is historic stonework on their property which would be affected by the acquisition.

The respondent submitted that it was necessary to acquire a portion of the applicants' land for the purpose of carrying out the installation of the Northbound Overtaking Lane. The Commissioner determined the alignment of the lane through extensive technical, social, economic, deliverability and economic assessments.

• The Tribunal is satisfied that the portion of land acquired is necessary for the undertaking;
• The Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the matters raised by the applicants justify setting aside the decision under review.

Administrative Review - Land Acquisition Act 1969 - Review of a decision of the Commissioner of Highways to refuse a request to not proceed with the acquisition of the subject land

Administrative tribunals - Procedure - Statutory Powers - Confidentiality orders

Highways Act 1926 ss 20, 20B

Land Acquisition Act 1969 ss 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 12A

South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37, 60

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 r 28

Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Rivett [2023] SACAT 48

Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64; (1979) 26 ALR 247

Salia Property Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways [2011] SASC 106

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is an application under the Land Acquisition Act 1969 (LA Act) in relation to the Commissioner of Highway's intention to acquire a portion of the applicants' land for the purposes of constructing a northbound overtaking lane on Main South Road to the north of Wirrina Cove.
2. By letter dated 27 August 2025 the applicants submitted an objection to the proposed acquisition.
3. By letter of 9 September 2025 ('the decision under review'), the Commissioner refused the applicants' request that the acquisition of the property not proceed.
4. On 10 September 2025 the applicants applied to this Tribunal for a review of the decision under review.
5. The following statutory provisions are relevant. Where I have underlined, italicised or bolded in the reasons that is for emphasis.
6. Section 3 provides that the object of the LA Act is to provide for the acquisition of land on just terms.
7. Section 7 provides that the LA Act applies to and in relation to every acquisition of land authorised by a special act (which in turn is defined as meaning an Act authorising the compulsory acquisition of land).
8. Section 20(1)(a) of the Highways Act 1926 (Highways Act) provides that the Commissioner may, with the approval of the Minister, acquire by agreement or compulsory process any land or interest in land for the purposes of present or future roadwork or any other purpose connected with the Highways Act.
9. Section 20B of the Highways Act provides that the Commissioner is not restricted to the acquisition of land actually required for the purpose, and the Commissioner may acquire such additional land as the Commissioner deems expedient and is approved by the Minister.
10. 'Roadwork' is defined in s 7 of the Highways Act and includes the construction of a road, the alteration of a road, the construction of drains and other structures for the drainage of water from a road, and any work in connection with a road.
11. The Highways Act is accordingly a 'special act', and by reason of s 7(2) of the LA Act, the LA Act and the Highways Act are to be read together as one Act.
12. Section 10 of the LA Act provides that the Authority (here the Commissioner) proposing to acquire the land must give a notice of intention to each person whose interest in the land is affected.
13. Section 11 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, require the Authority, by written notice -

(a) to give an explanation of the reasons for acquisition of the land; and

(b) to provide reasonable details of any statutory scheme in accordance with which the land is to be acquired.

...

12 - Right to object > > (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.

(2) For the purposes of this section -

(a) the registered representative of claimants to, or holders of, native title in land is taken to have an interest in that land; and

(b) the relevant representative Aboriginal body is taken to have an interest in the land if -

(i) the land is native title land; and

(ii) there is no native title declaration for the land; and

(iii) -

(A) there are no registered representatives of claimants to native title in the land; or

(B) an Aboriginal group that claims to hold native title in the land and for which there is no registered representative has, in accordance with the regulations, authorised the representative Aboriginal body to act on its behalf.

(3) A request may be made under subsection (1) -

(aa) on the ground that acquisition of the land or a particular part of the land is not necessary for the purposes of carrying out the undertaking to which the acquisition relates; or

(a) on the ground that acquisition of the land or carrying out the purposes for which the acquisition is proposed would -

(i) seriously impair an area of scenic beauty; or

(ii) destroy, damage or interfere with an Aboriginal site within the meaning of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988; or

(iii) destroy or impair a site of architectural, historic or scientific interest; or

(iv) prejudice the conservation of flora or fauna that should be conserved in the public interest; or

(v) prejudice some other public interest; or

(b) on some other ground stated in the request.

(4) The Authority must consider any request made to it under this section and must, within 14 days after receipt of the request, serve notice in writing on the person by whom the request was made, indicating whether it accedes to, or refuses, the request.

12A - Right of review > > (1) A person who makes a request under section 12 in relation to a proposed acquisition which is refused by the Authority under that section may apply to the Tribunal under section 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 for a review of the Authority's decision. > > (2) An application for review under subsection (1) must be made within 7 days of service on the person of the notice of the Authority's decision to refuse. > > (3) The Tribunal must complete its proceedings on a review within 21 days of the application being made under subsection (1). > > (4) The merits or otherwise of the undertaking to which the proposed acquisition relates cannot be called into question in a review under this section. > > (5) Section 71 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 does not apply to or in relation to a decision of the Tribunal under this section. > > (6) In this section - > > "Tribunal" means the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal established under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

2. If the acquisition proceeds, the LA Act goes on to set out the process to compensate the landowner for the land being acquired. Any issues relating to compensation are not before me on this review.
3. Under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act), the Tribunal conducts its review of the respondent's decision as an independent body. The Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision-maker by way of rehearing. On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision-maker.
4. In this case, the decision-maker is the State's road authority and has relied upon the work of employees and external experts including a series of reports on technical matters. The respondent says the designs and plans are the culmination of a process that has taken more than a year.
5. The procedure on a rehearing will include an examination of the evidence or material before the decision-maker and consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter. After making its decision, the Tribunal can affirm or vary the decision under review or can set the decision aside and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.
6. However, the scope of the Tribunal's review in this case is subject to the terms of s 12A(4) of the LA Act which provides that the merits of the undertaking to which the review relates cannot be called into question.
7. In Salia Property Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways [2011] SASC 106 ('Salia'), Justice Bleby observed at paragraph 90 (albeit in the context of a judicial review rather than a review before the Tribunal) that the Commissioner has a broad discretion to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of the Highways Act. His Honour said that the following matters must be taken into account - "whether the project for which the land is acquired is one which achieves the objects of the Highways Act, namely "to make further and better provision for the construction and maintenance of roads and works"; whether the land acquired is required to achieve those objects in the particular case; which existing estate or interest in the subject land must be acquired in order to achieve those objects and purposes; and whether the Minister has approved the acquisition". An appeal to the Full Court was dismissed (Salia Property Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Highways [2012] SASCFC 33).
8. The LA Act and Highways Act do not set out an obligation on the Commissioner to consult with members of the public in advance of commencing the process for the exercise of his compulsory powers of acquisition. The LA Act does, as set out above, give a process through which a person whose interests are affected can seek further information and explanation about the reasons for the acquisition, may make objections, and the Commissioner must in turn consider those objections before deciding whether to accede to or refuse the objection request. The LA Act does not mandate that satisfaction of any particular point in an objection must lead to a decision that the land should not be acquired.
9. Again, albeit in the context of a judicial review, the observation of the Full Court in Salia at [45-46] was:

[45] ... Section 11 is a significant provision. It entitles a person with an interest in the land in question to acquire information that might help the person express a requirement that the authority reconsider its decision as a result of a request under s 12(1) of the Act. However, the entitlement to make that request does not depend upon the relevant person making a requirement under s 11 of the Act, although doing so will extend the time for making a request under s 12(1) of the Act. If the request under s 12 does not result in any change by the authority, the relevant person can then require the minister to review the decision, by application in writing under s 12 A. The entitlement to make that request does not depend upon the making of a requirement under s 11(1) of the Act. Accordingly, while the discharge of the authority's obligation under s 11 may assist a person who wishes to make a request under s 12(1), that is as far as it goes. The making of a requirement under s 11(1) of the Act is not a precondition to the exercise, by the relevant person, of the entitlements conferred by ss 12 and 12A. This conclusion is not undermined by the opening words of s 16(1): "Subject to this Act the Authority may". Those words should not be treated as making each provision of the Act an essential preliminary to the exercise of the power under s 16. These words do no more than reflect the fact that there are various provisions of the Act that bear, in one way or another, on the procedure by which the authority may put itself in a position to utilise s 16. > > [46] The judge also considered the purpose of the Act. The focus of the Act is on the acquisition of land on just terms: s 3. A person with an interest in the relevant land has no right to challenge the decision to acquire the land. Such a person can do no more than require the authority to reconsider its decision, and require the minister to review the decision. Information provided under s 11 does not provide a basis for a challenge to the decision to acquire land.

10. The respondent draws attention to the Second Reading speech through which s 12A was inserted into the LA Act, and says that the purpose of the review procedure is to ensure that if the objections of a landholder have substance, those objections are properly considered. The aim is to balance the rights of the parties the subject of a compulsory land acquisition with the ability of a government to undertake particular projects for which the acquisition of land is necessary.
11. In so far as procedural matters are concerned, it is clear that the respondent has the requisite approval of the Minister to acquire the property; requires the property for a purpose authorised under the LA Act; has given the applicants notice under s 10; has responded to the applicants' request for information under s 11, and responded to the objection under s 12. The focus of the hearing accordingly was less on whether the formalities of the process have occurred, but on whether of the grounds in s 12(3) are made out, and if they are made out in the sense of enlivening the power to make a decision not to proceed whether the acquisition whether that power should be exercised.
12. The 'undertaking' is not defined in the LA Act.
13. I find that the 'undertaking' in this matter is the Northbound Overtaking Lane.
14. The Northbound Overtaking Lane was approved by the Minister. The approval was in terms of approving, in accordance with ss 20(1)(a) and 20B of the Highways Act:

The acquisition, by agreement or compulsory process, of all the land identified in Attachment 3 and any interest in the land to accommodate the Main South Road Overtaking Lane Project, for the third overtaking lane at Wirrina Cove between Second Valley and Normanville (northbound).

15. The paper giving rise to the approval refers to three overtaking lanes being constructed between Myponga and Cape Jervis, being a 42 km stretch of road with a 100 km/h speed limit outside townships. The two other overtaking lanes were already approved.
16. Amongst others, the applicants' land was part of schedule 3.
17. The Commissioner is seeking to acquire a portion of the applicants' land only.
18. The applicants' main arguments before the Tribunal were:

32.1 The acquisition of the land is 'not necessary' because the Commissioner of Highways owns land on the other side of the road.

32.2 There are two significant trees on the opposite side of the road which will be affected by the development anyway, and on the applicants' side there are 11 trees that might be affected.

32.4 The proposed works will affect their water supply.

32.5 There is a culvert which directs water into the applicants' northern most dam which contains historic stonework.

1. Additional arguments were set out in the objection notice including whether the overtaking lane could have been located elsewhere, that access to the applicants' property would be compromised, that there had been a lack of maintenance on Main South Road, and the degree of consultation with the applicants was inadequate.
2. The Commissioner in the decision under review stated:

34.1 It is necessary to acquire the land for roadworks that are necessary for the purposes of carrying out the installation of the Northbound Overtaking Lane, namely the extension of two existing culverts and their associated fill batters, and the extension of a small section of the existing cut batter.

34.2 The alignment of the Northbound Overtaking Lane was determined through extensive technical, social economic, deliverability and ecological assessments.

34.3 All reasonable endeavours were made to minimise the extent of land being required.

34.4 The location of photos that the applicants relied upon to say there was an area of scenic beauty depict features that are not situated within the land being sought to be acquired. The works would not cause serious impairment to the pictured site.

34.5 The existing culvert with the stone features is not on the applicants' property but on an existing road reserve. The Commissioner undertook a heritage assessment. The heritage assessment did not reveal any listed sites on the applicants' property or neighbouring properties.

34.6 The trees depicted in the applicants' photos would not be affected. An environmental assessment was done in relation to the effect on flora and fauna. Significant effort was done to minimise the impact on flora and fauna, with emphasis on avoiding vegetation with high biodiversity scores. Regrettably, there would be some impact on vegetation on the applicants' land, but the design avoids a significant number of planted trees on the western side of South Road and the greater public interest in preserving vegetation with the highest biodiversity value.

34.7 Safety considerations were taken into account. The design of the development takes into account the compliance with principles in the Austroads Guide to Road Design and the proposed alignment was the result of extensive consideration by expert road engineers. The public interest is served by the proposed acquisition.

34.8 All access points to the applicants' land remain unobstructed.

34.9 There will be no detrimental impact on the applicants' water supply. Ancillary works would be done in relation to an existing culvert which will see a resulting increase in waterflow to the northernmost dam.

34.10 The applicants will be compensated for the acquisition of the land.

34.11 The assertion of lack of maintenance on Main South Road and dissatisfaction with the extent of consultation are not a reason to disallow the objection.

34.12 There was extensive public consultation. The applicants' preferred location for an overtaking lane between Finnis Vale Drive and Paradise Drive was not a preferred location.

34.13 The request that the acquisition not proceed is refused.

35.2 An affidavit of Dr Kew (one of the applicants) dated 20 September 2025 which sets out the arguments referred to earlier in these reasons.

35.3 A Statement of Reasons of the Commissioner. This included:

35.3.1 A description of Main South Road as an important freight route connecting heavy vehicles, commuters, and tourists to destinations along the Fleurieu Peninsula.

35.3.2 Between Myponga and Cape Jervis the road is typically characterised by a narrow road corridor and curvilinear geometry landing. The nature and geometry of the road increases safety risk risks for road users and a lack of present overtaking opportunities is resulting in unreliable travelling times, causing drivers to make unsafe decisions.

35.3.3 A number of initiatives were identified for the purpose of improving road safety along Main South Road and to build capacity for future traffic growth. It was identified that a northbound overtaking lane between Normanville and Second Valley North of Paradise Drive, Wirrina Cove was required. There are no northbound overtaking lanes within this particular region of Main South Road. Furthermore, an overtaking lane at this location would provide an opportunity to safely overtake vehicles towing boats and caravans getting back to Adelaide from Wirrina Cove.

35.3.4 The Northbound Overtaking Lane is part of the Main South Road Overtaking Lane Project and will complement the other safety initiatives.

35.3.5 It is necessary to acquire a portion of the applicants' land for the purpose of constructing the Northbound Overtaking Lane.

35.3.6 The Northbound Overtaking Lane will be constructed primarily within the existing road reserve.

35.3.7 The works to be undertaken on the portion of the applicants' property to be acquired are in connection with the construction of that lane and are limited to the extension of existing drainage culverts and associated fill batter slopes and the extension of a small section of an existing cut batter slope.

35.3.8 The purpose of these works is to ensure that these stability and safety of the batter slopes is maintained. There are also existing culverts running across the road at natural water channels that drain water from the road which will be retained. The culverts will be extended to ensure water flows are not impacted around these fill areas. Accordingly, the partial acquisition of the property is required in order to modify existing batter slopes and drain culverts which are an integral part of the road infrastructure.

35.3.9 Approval was given by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to acquire a portion of the property on 1 October 2024. In accordance with s 10 of the LA Act the applicants were sent a Notice of Intention to Acquire Land (NOI). The NOI defined the interest in land to be acquired to be an unencumbered estate in fee simple in a portion of the land comprised in the certificate of title for the applicants' property. The NOI was served on the applicants on 14 March 2025.

35.3.10 On 28 March 2025 the applicants requested an explanation for the reason for the acquisition and details of the statutory scheme. The delegate for the Commissioner responded to this request on 30 July 2025.

35.3.11 By letter of 27 August 2025 the applicants objected to the proposed partial acquisition of the property.

35.3.12 The location and design of the Northbound Overtaking Lane was determined through extensive technical, socio-economic, and ecological assessments. The process to identify an appropriate site for an overtaking lane is a conflictual process involving advice from requisite subject matter experts. Multiple criteria are required to be taken into account. Furthermore, the Northbound Overtaking Lane must comply with the requirements of the Austroads Guide to Road Design that is an in-depth technical process that informs the recommendation made to the Commissioner.

35.3.13 Due consideration was given by the Commissioner to the applicants' request that the partial acquisition of their property not proceed. However, for the reason stated in the letter of 9 September 2025 the Commissioner determined to refuse that request and proceed with the acquisition.

35.4 The recommendation by the Commissioner to the Minister to approve the acquisition of land (approved 1 October 2024).

35.6 A composite of photographs prepared by the applicants showing a long section of road including where the applicants say a better place for the overtaking lane would be.

35.10 The applicants' objection letter of 27 August 2025 and the reviewable decision.

35.12 Full Planning Study Report (various revisions). The document is extensive. It includes material relating to the project background, data about traffic volumes, data about speed and crashes, information about flora and fauna, historic heritage and aboriginal heritage; an explanation of problems and solutions, plans, concept designs, discussion about a long list of options and the refinement into a short list, including the criteria adopted, information about approvals, information about environmental and heritage impact assessments, cost benefit analysis, details on curve widenings and options, stakeholder engagement information, and recommendations. The heritage and assessment report includes detailed information on species of fauna and flora, a view that the impact would be insignificant due to the limited extension of clearance, and the mitigation measures to be put in place.

35.13 A Native Vegetation Clearance Report. The document is lengthy. The option chosen was selected because there would be a smaller impact on vegetation relative to other options, and, additionally, it would avoid the clearance of a threatened flora species.

35.14 An affidavit of an employee of the Commissioner, Michael Rander.

1. Mr Rander also gave oral evidence. Amongst other things he explained why the culverts were a critical component of the road infrastructure, the upgrades that would take place to existing drainage, the topography of the site, what the earthworks will involve, that the works on the applicants' land are critical and are essential to maintain the effective flow of water beneath the road surface, that erosion protection works would take place, the effect on trees, and the consequences of the portion of the land was not required. He said that if the land could not be acquired then a significant redesign would need to take place, which would require land to be acquired on the other side of Main Road, and that this would have a greater impact on the native vegetation and significant trees. Any redesign would cause substantial delays and require a reassessment of economic viability.
2. I have considered the applicants' arguments.
3. On the topic of necessity, I am satisfied that the portion of land acquired is necessary for the undertaking.
4. The applicants' primary arguments challenging necessity appeared two-fold.
5. The first is that the Commissioner has a road reserve and the works could be entirely located within that road reserve.
6. Mr Rander explained why this was not the case. The road itself is not being built on the applicants' land. Rather, the areas identified relate to what in lay terms can be described as the associated works where land needs to be cut and filled to accommodate the road because of the topography of the land. The area to be acquired is extremely narrow in that regard and is no more than necessary. The culverts are to be upgraded and extended for the reasons described in the materials relating to drainage and some land is to be acquired for that purpose. If the position of the road were changed so that the lane was shifted to be, as the applicants would say, on the existing road reserve on the other side of the road, then there would need to be a cutting into the other side of the road and the acquisition of land on the other side of the road would be necessary. He did not agree with the applicants' suggestion that the entirety of the works could be done on land owned by the Commissioner. Moving the works contemplated on the applicants' side of the land and constructing the overtaking lane on the other side of the road would involve a greater effect on vegetation. It would also not be as straightforward as what the applicants say. The road needs to meet the relevant design rules and follow the curvature of the existing road. It is not feasible to put a diversion in the road around the applicants' land alone, and a wholesale redesign to widen the other side of the road was carefully considered but rejected.
7. A second argument was that the location of the undertaking itself could be moved to an alternative location. I consider that argument is contrary to the prohibition in s 12A about calling into question the merits of the undertaking to which the acquisition relates. In any event the alternative option was considered and rejected. One of the reasons for rejecting it was safety related, including the issue of ending an overtaking lane on a bridge. That issue might be able to be solved with expenditure of a greater sum of money to deal with the bridge. The applicants were critical of the Commissioner making decisions for reasons of 'cost', but the budget for roads is not unlimited and cost is one of many factors to be taken into account.
8. I find that the applicants have not proven that there will be any effect on the drainage to their property in terms of waterflow to dams. The Commissioner has provided evidence that this issue has been carefully considered and that works will take place that will result in there being more waterflow to the dam rather than less. Work will also be done to minimise erosion.
9. I do not find that the works will seriously impair an area of scenic beauty. The applicants contend that it will 'require 100 years to replace some of the trees targeted for removal'. Whilst I accept that the area is beautiful to the applicants, it appears to be no more or less beautiful than the surrounding area, and it needs to be borne in mind that what is being acquired is a narrow strip of land, not the land as a whole.
10. I do not find that there the acquisition would destroy or impair a site of architectural, historic or scientific interest at a level that would justify setting aside the decision under review. The undertaking will result in work being done to culverts that include one with stonework around it. That culvert is not the culvert on the land being acquired. Apart from the fact that there are some stones that can be seen in the photos, there is no evidence of what the precise historical significance is said to be, although the applicants in their written submissions said that a Mr Kelly was an engineer who served in World War 1 and did not return, and that many of his constructions on the property exist and that the culvert was a 'historic culvert'. The Commissioner obtained a heritage report. No area of heritage was identified. The Commissioner has given consideration to the applicants' assertion that the stone culvert has historical value, and has decided that this was not a reason not to proceed with the acquisition.
11. I do not find that there is an effect on flora or fauna that is in the public interest to protect so as to justify setting aside the reviewable decision. The applicants contend that it is 'unfair' that by 'accident of history' the significant trees on the other side of the road are to be preserved whilst their trees are affected. I accept that there will be an effect on vegetation associated with the works to be carried out on the land to be acquired. There will be an effect on vegetation if the undertaking was carried out elsewhere. The effect on vegetation is minimised through the design taken by the Commissioner. Doing the overtaking lane on the other side of the road will have a greater effect. This issue has been considered in detail as part of the assessment of the undertaking. The report of 19 August 2025 spans nearly 120 pages. I am not satisfied that the public interest in preserving the trees on the land acquired outweighs the public interest in the road widening as a whole or the interest in preserving trees on the other side of the road. The applicants also contend that the land draws kangaroos, echidnas and birds to the area. That may be so, but there was no evidence led by them as to how that fauna would be affected. The Commissioner has considered these issues. The report obtained suggested that there would be an insignificant effect on fauna but did suggest fauna management measures that should be put in place.
12. As to the applicants' arguments that there is some other ground stated in the objection, they have not led evidence to prove that public safety issues arise out the decision to have an overtaking lane or that it will 'enable dangerous driving'. The Commissioner has decided to proceed with the undertaking because, in his view, the overtaking lane will increase safety on the roads. The applicants also referred to impacts on their livestock, but there is no evidence to support the same, and it would appear to be of greater relevance to any dispute about compensation. They refer to their views being destroyed, and that this will affect prospective buyers. Given the size of the land as a whole and the relatively small section being acquired, I am not convinced that these issues justify a decision to not proceed with the acquisition. They complain about a lack of maintenance on the road, but this is not a reason not to upgrade the road. They complain about the adequacy of consultation, but the evidence suggests both that there was consultation, and that the consultation is in any event not mandated in the LA Act or the Highways Act.
13. Whilst the statutory scheme gives the applicants a right to object to the acquisition, and requires the Commissioner to consider that objection, the statute does not say that making out any of the grounds referred to in s 12 of the LA Act means that the Commissioner must decide not to acquire the land. That is, the Commissioner may still acquire land notwithstanding the existence of an objection. The scheme requires the objections to be considered and taken into account, and for a scheme for compensation for the acquisition. I am not satisfied that any of the matters raised by the applicants justify setting aside the decision under review.

1. The respondent has sought an order under s 60 of the SACAT Act to prohibit the publication to any third parties of evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of any document produced including the book of documents.
2. Section 60 of the SACAT Act provides in subsection (1) for a starting point that proceedings before the Tribunal must be in public. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this starting point was explained by Brennan J in Re Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 64; (1979) 26 ALR 247 as 'a principle of particular importance to a Tribunal which is engaged in reviewing the exercise of administrative power, for administration has hitherto been a cloistered process ... and its exposure to public scrutiny is calculated to enhance greater public confidence in it'.
3. That starting point is subject to subsection (2) which gives a broad discretion to the Tribunal to make confidentiality orders where it is satisfied that it is 'desirable' to do so having regard to the interests of justice, the confidential nature of the evidence, to expedite proceedings or for any other reason that the Tribunal thinks sufficient.
4. In Physiotherapy Board of Australia v Rivett [2023] SACAT 48 the Tribunal prohibited the publication of material identifying the victims of alleged professional misconduct, but refused an application by the respondent physiotherapist to prohibit publication of any material identifying himself. The Tribunal referred to the proposition that the principle of open justice is to be regarded as the norm, and said that the fact that publication may cause shame, humiliation or reputational damage to the respondent (or his relatives or associates) is usually not a sufficient reason for departing from that principle.
5. The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 provide in rule 28 that "an application for directions under s 60 of the SACAT Act must include, in a sworn statement, the reasons for the application and why the directions should be made". No sworn statement has been provided, but the respondent has raised the issue in both written submissions and in a letter from the respondent's solicitor dated 26 September 2025. No evidence has been provided in support of the application.
6. The respondent submits the entirety of the book of documents is 'highly sensitive' and 'ordinarily treated as privileged and confidential in the interest of public safety and infrastructure security'. It is not clear what public safety or infrastructure security issue is compromised by reference to any material in the book of documents.
7. The respondent submits that the book of documents including material that is 'legal and sensitive material of a confidential nature' and includes external reports, ministerial decisions, budgetary information, internal communications referring to officers by name that could give rise to safety and privacy concerns, and reports that authors have 'expressly stated that public release is inappropriate'.
8. At the hearing I expressed reservations about a broad-brush approach to confidentiality and suggested that the respondent make targeted submissions about particular documents or parts of documents. The respondent instead has maintained a broad-brush approach to the entire book of documents.
9. No evidence has been led about confidentiality. I could not find any reference to tenders at all or any budget information of a kind not likely to be in the public domain - the references in the book of documents are in the broadest terms. There did not appear to be anything unusual or sensitive in the various reports and recommendations. Authors' names often appear on documents tendered in a court or tribunal. The subject matter of the proceedings is not of a kind that involves issues like private health information, names of minors, or identification of victims of abuse that are the more common situations where the Tribunal might make a confidentiality order under s 60.
10. In so far as there are references to studies involving trees, animals or heritage issues, it is hard to see how any of that material would be confidential.
11. The 'Ministerial approval' documents do not appear to me to involve considerations of a sensitive nature that should be kept secret in the public interest. They deal with topics that set out the reasons why the overtaking lane should be supported but don't reveal (at least on my reading) any commercially sensitive or privileged material.
12. If there are particular documents or parts of documents that the respondent says is confidential then it is at liberty to make a further application and make further submissions, but on the material before me the starting point is that proceedings in the Tribunal take place in public and there is a public interest in the review of decisions of government. I am not prepared to make a blanket confidentiality order and would need to be convinced as to why any document or part of a document should be the subject of orders.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.