‘Everything is a lie’: Landholders dejected as properties taken for new Bruce

People whose homes will be resumed for a major new Queensland highway say they feel chewed up and spat out by an unclear process that was sold to them as the easy way out.

Home owners in Narangba, on Brisbane’s swelling northern fringe, were told in July 2023 their land was in the path of the Bruce Highway Western Alternative, a desperately needed motorway to take pressure off the constantly busy and often dangerous Bruce.

Among those affected were Christine Schulz and her husband Robert, who operate a small fruit farm growing bananas and mangos.

Under the gazetted plan, the highway would take all but five of their 22 acres (8.9 hectares). The two houses they had built, and most of the farmland, would become tarmac.

Despite the farm being the culmination of their life’s work, the Schulzes understood the road was needed.

“We were willing to go, we were actually looking at places where we would go,” Christine Schulz said.

So at their first meeting with the department they were open to finding out their options.

“At the first TMR one-on-one conference, they are very nice, they’re very friendly, and you sort of get a feeling that you’re going to be looked after,” she said. “But everything they tell you is a lie.”

She said they were told they would get above market rate for their land, which would be enough to buy a “like-for-like” property. “They said ‘you won’t be worse off’.”

During the meeting, the concept of early acquisition – where the government buys a whole lot before resumption is required – was floated.

“What they didn’t tell us there [was if] you do that, you’re not covered by legislation, you’re covered by policy,” Christine Schulz said.

Early acquisition is accessible to people facing certain hardships. After paying a $2000 fee to their solicitor, the Schulzes were approved due to Christine’s high blood pressure.

Unlike resumption, early acquisition is essentially the sale of an entire property rather than just what is needed for a project.

Many of the legal rights enjoyed during resumption do not apply, and issues cannot be taken to Land Court. Negotiations, which can be terminated at any time, are done on a “without prejudice” basis after independent valuers from both sides assess the property.

However, an independent valuer who works in the field told this masthead early acquisition gives the government the upper hand, as it essentially an open market with just one possible buyer.

The Schulzes claim TMR never explained the difference between their rights during early acquisition and official resumption.

When they arrived at a meeting to discuss land value, they said TMR’s valuer told them his evaluation had nothing to do with market value, but rather what he believed they would get at auction.

The Schulzes said they were hoping to get $2.5 million but were offered $2.15 million for the property, after an initial offer of $2 million.

They felt it did not reflect the work they had done on the farm and would not have been enough for them to find a similar property in the area.

“They’ve penalised us because we don’t have a fancy bathroom and all that stuff. We put all our money into bettering our lifestyle,” Christine said.

The TMR spokesperson said the department has no preference between early acquisition and official resumption.

The department’s early acquisition policy states, “the value of the property will be negotiated on the basis of the price that would have been realised had the planning not been announced”.

A 2022 New South Wales parliamentary inquiry into land acquisitions in that state noted some participants had raised concerns about the price offered by the government for early acquisitions.

“There were concerns that due to the very nature of an owner having to apply for a hardship acquisition they have no power to negotiate, which allows the acquiring authority to offer a very low purchase price,” the final report stated.

After their settlement meeting, the Schulzes decided to terminate the process and wait until their land was resumed.

“I tell everyone: ‘Don’t trust anyone’. Don’t tell people things and then penalise them because of it. That’s what TMR have done to us,” said Christine Schulz, who is now potentially facing years of limbo.

Across the road from the Schulzes, the Herberts have been dealing with a similar issue.

They said they were not allowed to record the early meetings with TMR officials, where they claim they too were told about rights under resumption and how easy early acquisition would make the whole process.

Garry Herbert said early acquisition was brought up like a “magic pill”, just after they were told about their rights under the Acquisition of Land Act.

“All you have to do is have a heartbeat and get a doctor to say that you are having trouble sleeping at night and you’re eligible,” he said he was told.

After two years of back and forth, the Herberts – who stood to lose five of their 15 acres – came to a number they agreed with for the land, but moving costs became a sticking point.

Instead of selling their land and moving on with their lives, they say they got years of stress and a legal fee. Like the Schulzes, they will now wait until TMR demands their land.

A TMR spokesperson said they remained committed to helping all landholders who have to go through the process.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.