Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

I was just musing on a contribution from Senator Bartlett when he said that it is very sad on this occasion that we seem so split on this. I agreed that it was very concerning, but it is because of the sorts of submissions that we are getting from Senator Bob Brown. We come up here to look at something and he has to throw in ‘dispossession’, ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘the hall of injustice’. Maybe Senator Brown will get a moment on television and no doubt that is what he is here for. But, in terms of clarity, he could not have misled the Senate more on any of those issues. But he did ask two questions which I think are important. He asked how you reflect on ‘just terms’ and ‘reasonable compensation’ and those issues. Whilst I am not a lawyer, the government would not bring legislation into this place that is unconstitutional. We know that it would not get the support of our own members.

Perhaps I should go to the particular question of reasonable compensation and just terms. I am advised that that these terms are interchangeable for legislative drafting. When I made the inquiry I was told that the requirement is an objective one enforceable in the courts and is not left to the discretion of an official. By ‘an official’ I mean any legal authority. This formulation has been accepted by the courts and in particular was approved by the full bench of the Federal Court in the Minister for Primary Industry and Energy v Davey, which held that reasonable compensation fulfilled the requirement to pay just terms. While I am sure that you have had some legal advice that this is unconstitutional and this is a ‘hall of injustice’, Senator Brown, the facts of the matter are that we have checked this and ensured that this is not unconstitutional.

With regard to a couple of Senator Brown’s other throwaway comments, because we like to ensure that those who are listening remain outraged by your opposition to the fact that we are trying to help, remember that the background to this—and I know that Senator Brown perhaps failed to pass the background on—is that this is not compensation on just terms where we would own or take the land. This is a very unique circumstance. We will not own the land. We are not taking the land away. We are simply ensuring the governance arrangements for the swift provision of housing and infrastructure. We have specifically said that after five years, which is the general intent, we will have completed the job and the land will be automatically returned. It would need no act of parliament as it is simply a sunset clause and the land would be returned. They are very different circumstances.

The reason that I said that I was heartened by the fact that the Northern Territory Valuer-General was involved is that he is not any ordinary valuer-general. In fact, the Valuer-General is not some assistant to some grubby real estate agent, as perhaps Senator Brown would have us think. His organisation is internationally acclaimed as an organisation that takes into consideration cultural issues. His organisation is on the cutting edge. It takes into consideration spiritual issues, cultural issues and sacred sites. Even between Indigenous cultures there has to be recognition of compensation for those things. The Northern Territory Valuer-General has vast experience in that—and probably unique experience, even internationally. I have a great deal of faith that the Valuer-General of the Northern Territory is probably the only place that you would have the sorts of issues that Senator Brown brought up taken into consideration.

This legislation has been carefully thought out. Senator Brown has the notion that this is something that is unconstitutional or somehow dispossessing people. He well knows that they still own the land. Let us take away for a moment the cloak of mischief that you place on the legislation currently before the Senate. We are not there to create mischief; we are there to help provide the rule of law and order. We will help to provide the ordinary amenities, services and houses that the rest of Australia takes for granted. I know that you wish to paint me and the government as usurpers or as being in there to dispossess land or to somehow do mischief to Indigenous Australians. But all Australians know—and they have carefully watched the interdiction process and are widely supportive of it—that there is no mischief intended by this; none whatsoever. I hope that that provides some clarity and specifically answers your question.