Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 presented by Senator Hanson. I must say, I have empathy around the arguments made by Senator Hanson with respect to the processes for the compulsory acquisition of land, particularly where those acquisitions affect not just the land of an individual but, in many cases, our constituents in provincial, rural, remote Australia—describe it as you will—for whom this land also happen to be the foundation asset of their businesses, their livelihood.

We've all known of circumstances in which a compulsory acquisition of land has occurred in metropolitan areas for the building of highways, for the development of public utilities generally, for rail lines and for port expansions. An equal degree of anxiety exists amongst the owners of that land, as may be the case particularly with the cited example of the acquisition of land in Central and north Central Queensland. But there is a distinct difference, which I think Senator Hanson has touched on, and that is that these acquisitions can impact on land that is also the primary source of the livelihood of the people who operate that land. In this case it was almost exclusively in areas that were involved in beef production. Being a beef producer myself, I understand the conflict that would confront many of the landowners in this particular case. Unlike with other businesses, the business plans that are developed for many properties have a long intention. It can be a plan to develop your property that might take you 10 to 20 years. In the course of that, there are various stages where you are developing your asset for the purposes of your livelihood, where in effect you are partially through developing the land. At that stage, that may impact negatively on the value of the property as opposed to positively, and Senator Williams would be well aware of the things I'm referring to. You may have purchased a property because it appealed to you, in that it may have had rundown assets and facilities, so you've set about to develop it. In many cases this is the life's work of people. When they come onto a property they may have a 10-year plan to fence it and, in the case of cattle, to replace cattle yards and cattle handling facilities; to improve the waters; and to improve the pasture, which could involve land clearing and pasture production. If you're at the wrong stage in the development phases of your asset, it can have less appeal, might I say, in the marketplace, for others who might not have the same strong will to develop the property.

But it is about connection to the land. Many of the people who are in the grazing and pastoral communities are multigenerational. Many of these properties have been in the hands of their parents or in some other form of family partnership. And so there is an enormous attachment. Their life's work is there, on that land. They may well be in an age bracket or in circumstances that prevent them from starting again. This might not be something that is understood by many in this place, but I can tell you from personal experience that, when you're on the land, if you've undertaken a significant campaign to improve pasture, fence it, put in proper water facilities, reticulating water through a particular area—these are big expansive properties; the greater Canberra city would be the horse paddock. People have put decades into these properties.

I was recently with one of these graziers in Casino, not more than a month ago, and I reminded this pastoralist that we had known each other 35 years ago, when he was a miner in a mining community in Central Queensland and when I was the local detective. He informed me—and I knew it at that time—that he had bought a property in the Marlborough district and was affected by this. He was one of the main protagonists against these acquisitions. He filled me in on the fact that he had been 35 years developing this property, and it was not yet where he wanted it to be. People don't quite understand that, for example, when your cattle become acclimatised to a particular area, if there is massive disruption in their lives—if they're taken to other pasture types, if they're moved, particularly in the coastal areas, to more marginal country—the value of those cattle can be significantly impacted upon.