Senate debates
Tuesday, 14 August 2007
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE PAYMENT REFORM) BILL 2007; NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE BILL 2007; FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NORTHERN TERRITORY NATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2007; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008; Appropriation (Northern Territory National Emergency Response) Bill (No. 2) 2007-2008
In Committee
9:31 pm
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
In referring to the process that is being undertaken here, the senator introduced the word ‘mischief’ from deep in his own mind. Specifically in response to that effort to answer my questions—which ducked the central point of those questions—could he turn to clause 60(1), which says:
(b) any act done in relation to the following land:
… … …
- (ii)
- land that has been resumed, or land in respect of which a lease has been forfeited, by the Commonwealth under the Special Purposes Leases Act or the Crown Lands Act …
The minister indicated that they were not going to do that; they are simply taking it over and are going to give it back. Why is there this clause, then, talking about land that has been resumed or in respect of which a lease has been forfeited? Clause 60(2) reads:
However, if the operation of this Part, or an act referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (c), would result in an acquisition of property to which paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution applies from a person otherwise than on just terms, the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.
What does that clause mean if the Commonwealth does not intend, as the clause says, to acquire property ‘from a person otherwise than on just terms’? What on earth is that clause doing in there if it is not meant as it is written? Can the minister answer that?
No comments