Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

The member for New England lives on the dream that he once had the balance of power in New South Wales—the only time he was ever effective in a parliament, in all his years in politics! The fact is that the government are saying: ‘This is not property right. We’re not going to agree to a property right.’ If it was and there was compensation then it was tax deductible. It is as clear as that. If the member for New England and the member for Parramatta have any influence at all—and they say they have influence—they should talk to the state government about some of this. If the member for Gwydir had not stood up and looked for compensation for these people who were losing their water rights, there would be no compensation. The state government was dragged screaming and yelling to the fact that they had to match it—that is, the $55 million that was put on the table. That is where the compensation came from.

The real issue here is the taxation angle. I once headed up the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage in the previous parliament. We did a study on catchment management. The bipartisan opinion was that if people have to have some interference in their property rights in the general good, in the good of the community, then the community have to compensate those people for that. I stand by that. The community have to compensate them for that. There is no argument about that. We did it for milk and we did it for sugar. I see no reason why we cannot have legislation in this parliament that allows this to be a tax deduction. I see no reason why it cannot be that way. As I said, the member for Gwydir, despite the fact that he is being attacked by the member for New England, stood up and said that these people were entitled to compensation. We have to now support that. I say to the government: have a look at milk, have a look at sugar and have a look at the way we dealt with those. The fact is that compensation payments were given to those industries because they had been disturbed by an act of the parliament. They should be tax deductible and they should be treated as capitalisation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context