Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I introduced the Lands Acquisition (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 in response to the recent actions of the government in issuing declarations of intent to acquire land from Australian farmers in both the Rockhampton and Charters Towers regions of Queensland. The federal government's statement, as contained in correspondence to landholders, was that the land acquired would be owned by the Department of Defence and allow for expanded training exercises by the Australian Army, as well as facilitating an increase in use by the Singaporean army from 6,000 troops for periods of six weeks to 14,000 troops for up to 18 weeks. The Army had only sent out the correspondence in regard to these acquisitions following an inspection by the Singaporean army. The Singaporean army had stated that it wanted the land for its future training purposes, as indicated in the department's correspondence about the land in question.

At public meetings held with the landowners by the Army, it was clearly stated that the primary purpose of the land acquisition was that the land was being acquired not for the purposes of the Australian Army but for the use and training of the Singaporean army. The government referred in their correspondence to the Australia-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which included a general arrangement pursuant to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The SAFTA refers only to cooperation between the two countries in a number of areas, including the military as well as technology and agriculture cooperation areas of interest. It does not place an obligation on Australia or Singapore.

The Army has a land area in the Shoalwater Bay training complex of approximately one million acres, yet the Australian Army stated this was not sufficient. There was no consideration of the interests held by the Australian landowners—where exactly was the 'public purpose' required by the legislation? I would just like to expand on this. The Australian Army has quite extensive land in the Shoalwater Bay area, and yet it was wanting to allow the Singaporean army to buy up more land around that area—prime agricultural land—from farmers. What has happened to the Australian land is that over the years they've said, 'We can't use this land.' Why? Because of the overgrowth, because of the number of trees on it. Over that period they have not been able to clear the land because of the environmental laws of the Queensland government. So, here we have the situation of, 'Oh, we can't use this land, so we'll just let it sit there, but we'll go and acquire some great agricultural land that is producing thousands of head of cattle,' which were being sent to market, providing jobs in abattoirs and in the ongoing businesses in the whole area. But they're ready to say, 'No, we just need to acquire some more land,' as if you can pick up prime agricultural land anywhere in Australia. It is not the case. That land is so valuable, and it's so necessary to keep it as that.

So, public purpose—the whole intent of this bill: where was the public purpose as required by the legislation? There was absolutely no public support for this acquisition, nor was there any purpose behind it that benefitted the Australian public. People I spoke to when I went up to Charters Towers—and we're talking about between 50 and 60 farming families looking down the barrel of a gun at losing their properties—they said no-one was listening to them. These are properties that have been handed down through several generations and that people had bought and worked extremely hard to improve. This is where they want to live, and naturally they want to hand their properties down to their children.

And this was all so that Singaporean army personnel could come out here and train for a few weeks a year. We're talking about more land than the size of Singapore itself, land that they are wanting to buy up. The Army had stated that the public would benefit from this acquisition. Well, I beg to differ. No benefit could be demonstrated, but significant detriment could clearly be demonstrated, not only to the landholders who were directly affected but to the entire regions of Rockhampton and Charters Towers. They were saying that the Singaporeans were going to come and increase tourism in the area. But the tourism was actually going to destroy a small country town called Marlborough. It's not a tourist area, but the businesses there would have been affected, because they would no longer have the trade from the farming families living there and going into town to use the post office or go to the local pub. The Singaporeans would be going to Townsville, buying up the accommodation there. They had plans as to where they wanted to go during their time off. The loss to Australia was approximately 800 acres of prime grazing country and over 90,000 head of cattle that would have been going to local abattoirs, with the inevitable closure and the loss of employment in both regions—as I said, the loss of over $90 million in cattle sales, and twice that figure after the processing of the cattle from sales by the abattoirs.

We have seen our state of Queensland go through dire straits with droughts, and farmers can't even keep the cattle on their property. Yet here we are taking another 90,000 to 100,000 head of cattle out of the marketplace, I heard. So, on top of the drought we're putting ourselves in the dire situation in which we won't even have enough cattle in Australia for our own needs, let alone for export. Yet the government—or anyone—had no concerns about the impact this would have on Australia. At the briefings to the affected landholders, the Army representative stated that the local community would be providing food, hospitality and transport, to name a few. However, it was then found that the Singapore government had already sought expressions of interest from offshore companies for the transportation of food and ordnances into the area, supplied directly from Singapore—not from one Australian company. We were told that the Singaporeans were going to bring $2.5 billion into the country, and we were going to make so much money out of this and it was going to be great for the country. No, it wasn't. It was the worst deal that was going to happen. And, as I said, they had lined up Australian shipping companies to bring in their food and ordnance from overseas. This was not a good deal for us.

The government stated it was supporting rural communities, but here it was destroying two communities, offering no compensation to businesses other than the landowners, who didn't want to sell. Only a couple of people sold, because they were issued enormous amounts of money for their properties—the hope being that if one fell over then the others would. But the majority of farmers that I spoke to didn't want to sell their properties. They were being forced into it. Additionally, in the Charters Towers region, Infrastructure Australia and the Prime Minister of Australia had listed the Hells Gate Dam project as a high-priority project, which the Prime Minister did—it was in his election promises, and in the first meeting I had with him I spoke about going ahead with Hells Gate Dam. But the very land that could benefit from the dam was the very land the army had stated it was interested in acquiring. So what is going to happen? Are we going to build the Hells Gate Dam and then just hand the property over to the Singaporean army? It doesn't make sense to me.

When I raised the issue at a briefing, the army representative stated he was unaware of this priority infrastructure, as did the department's representative. So, was the right hand talking to the left hand, or does no-one know what the hell is going on? Yet the farmers up there were so distraught because they didn't know what was happening with them. It was a clear case of a compulsory acquisition not having a direct public purpose, as required by the act, but instead appearing to benefit a third party. So I ask the question: where was the public purpose?

The Australian Army only sent out correspondence in regard to this acquisition following an inspection by the Singapore Army. Its statement specified that it wanted the land, as indicated in the correspondence, as 'land of interest'. So it's up to the Singapore Army. They went out and said, 'Mate, this is what we want.' The term 'public purpose' is more than the vague legal definition of the act referring, as it does, to those legislative areas for which the parliament has power to make laws.

The key element in the land acquisition proposal by the Australian Defence Force was the definition of 'public purpose'. An information guide published by the Department of Finance and Deregulation in May 2011, titled The Commonwealth and You: Compulsory Acquisition of Land, states:

The Minister issues a document to affected landowners, which states that the Minister is considering the acquisition by the Commonwealth land for a public purpose. This document is a pre-acquisition declaration.

It tells you which Commonwealth authority wants to acquire the land;

It describes the land fully;

It states that the Minister thinks the land appears to be suitable for a public purpose;

It states the public purpose the land has been chosen for; and

It explains why the Minister considers the land suitable for the intended use.

But there is no clarity on the meaning of the term 'public purpose'.

In general Australians understand that, because the country has grown, we need infrastructure. They may not like it, but they understand if their land has to be acquired for maybe putting in a dam or maybe for roadworks, a motorway, a hospital or for some other reason that is of a general benefit to the public. They don't like it, but they will actually accept it if they're paid the right compensation for it. But I understand, and this is why the farming families have my total support, that when it came to this they were going to lose their properties—for what? So that Singaporeans can come out here for six weeks or 18 weeks a year and train, when we have so much land in Australia and when there are other training areas? They should have been going to Western Australia or even up to the Northern Territory, but, no, they wanted prime agricultural land in Australia and their hands were tied. They were having meetings with the Defence Force. They were having meetings with other people. No-one was listening to them. It was well attended by people in the area at public meetings.

The second reading speech on the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act 1989 adds little to the meaning of the words other than referring to section 31 of the act. However, the following sentence is relevant as it gives the tenor of the purpose of the words within the meaning of the act:

This Government is concerned by the need to strike a balance between the rights of private property on the one hand and the legitimate needs of society for land for public purposes on the other.

This sentence within the second reading speech clearly delineates that the acquisition is for the benefit of society. There was no substantive debate on what the phrase 'public purpose' meant. The reason why one has to revert to external explanations is due to the vagueness of the definition within section 6 of the act, which states as follows:

… public purpose means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws and includes, in relation to land in a Territory, any purpose in relation to the Territory.

In judgements on which the issue has been raised, the acquisition must be for the primary benefit of the community and Australia generally. Well, that certainly wasn't the case when it came to destroying our prime agricultural farming land, displacing Australians for the Singaporean army to train out here. I ask the question: What deals were done?

We cannot allow this to happen. I feel for the Australian people. I know what it's like to work hard to own your own land, to love the land that you're on and then to have someone come and say, 'Oh, no, you've got to give it up because we want Singaporeans to train here with no benefit to this country whatsoever.' This is especially so when, as I stated, there is other land they could train on in this country. It's about time that members in this place and the other place started listening to the Australian people and their pain and what they're going through, not listening to the bureaucrats and those others that have no idea. It is the grassroots Australians that are being forgotten.

There has been very little case law on the meaning of the words 'public purpose', particularly in the context of like cases of acquisition for the primary purpose of land for the training of a foreign army. Irrespective of the wide ambit of the definition of the words 'public purpose' within the Land Acquisitions Act of 1989, it is evident from case law that such an acquisition must be shown to actually be for the benefit of the public. The bill, which I seek the support of all parties for, clarifies the meaning of those important words 'public purpose'. It is important for all Australians that they know their land and their heritage will never be compulsorily acquired for the benefit of an unrelated third party and, as far as I'm concerned, especially for a foreign third party.

Before any declaration is made by any department to acquire an interest in land, the bill will require that department to demonstrate the purpose of using that interest or for its need for that interest to provide services. The acquiring authority must show that the need will be for the direct benefit of the Australian public or for the provision to the Australian public of necessary services.

The bill does not alter the intent of the original act. It clarifies the meaning and intent of the act so that the Australian public will never again be subject to months of upset and costs in trying to protect their interest for the ongoing benefit of their families. I hope both sides of this chamber and the minor political parties clearly look at what I'm putting forward here if they truly want to represent the people of Australia. If they saw the faces of these farming families and what's going to happen to them, they would understand. They could be our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our aunts, our cousins—our families. These people are clearly looking to us to stand up and fight and represent them. It is not up to the bureaucrats to make these decisions. It is not up to these foreign interests who say, 'We want this,' or 'We want that.' It's up to us to make the right decisions on behalf of the people who are relying on us to fight for them and stand up for their rights.

As I said to you earlier, I've got no problems with acquiring land for the right reasons, because this country is growing rapidly. But when we are asking people to give up the land that they love, people who have seen their families fight in the past for their land and for freedom for their way of life in this country, and we are prepared to allow it to be sold to a foreign power—to the Singaporean army, so that they can do their training—that's not good enough, as far as I'm concerned.

All I'm asking for in this bill is that if anyone's going to acquire land then we should make sure it is in the best interests of the Australian people, not of a foreign power. Give the Australian people some stability so they know that the decisions being made are right for them and for future generations.

This bill overcomes the vagueness of the existing definition but gives clarity to the meaning of the term 'public purpose' without the need for future litigation. The bill does not apply to acquisitions by consent. As I've said and will say again, because One Nation has been fighting for this matter—and I know there were some on the government side who disagreed with the compulsory acquisition of the land for the Singaporean army, and I do appreciate their support on this— (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will lose weight.

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

They will lose weight, as they precondition them. Sometimes it's actually only their progeny that become acclimatised to the country and perform better. So I do understand this nexus between the people and the land, particularly in rural areas. The genesis of this for Senator Hanson was obviously the issues around Central Queensland and North Queensland. I've got to say—and I'll probably get a call from the headmaster after this—that this was not well managed. Despite the pleas that there had been public consultation and engagement with the communities that were impacted by this, that wasn't 100 per cent correct in all of the cases.

I made the point at the time that, had our government engaged with some of us representatives of government who have an affinity with the people in these regions, we might have made more progress or been able to establish exactly where we were with these communities before this all fell to pieces. Senator Hanson, I understand completely the spirit of the proposal being made here with the amendments in this legislation, but I'm inclined to think—using this as a case study—that we can make all the rules we like around this but, unless culturally the people in the bureaucracy, and in this case the Department of Defence, approach this in a more compassionate manner, we're going to end up with the same set of circumstances again and again, notwithstanding what rules, regulations or framework of operation we put in place.

I think that this was, in large part, a poor effort at the front end of engagement with these communities in these particular cases. I know that Senator Hanson played a very active role, as did a number of us. Fortunately on this occasion the Deputy Prime Minister took an interest in it. Had he been commissioned to take an interest in it at a date sooner than was the case, we might have had some resolution at an earlier time. But the Deputy Prime Minister did visit the area, on 3 February, and had meetings with local people who were affected and, indeed, other stakeholders in the community, not just those who might have been the subject of the acquisition. It is a matter of record that, the following day, the government made the commitment that no-one would be forced to sell their land against their will.

There was a division of thought in the area. There were some landowners who were willing to part with their land, on just terms—if I can make reference to my favourite movie, The Castle. In fact, there were landowners who engaged contractually with the government and did sell their land. So we had the willing sellers. But then equally we had—and I suspect there were more of them—the people that I have mentioned here in this contribution today, the people who had put a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears into their land, who were at some stage within a development program for their property and for whom an acquisition at that time would not have realised the great potential that their property might have had. They might have been wanting to upgrade their circumstances, perhaps because of retirement, and, given some more time, they might have had their land more adequately valued.

A great example of that—I touched on this earlier—is that you might purchase a large area of land that requires 200 kilometres of fencing to be done. No matter how energetic you are, that will take you a long period of time. It will have a serious investment impact from a money quantum point of view. If you haven't started that program or you're early into that program but it is not completed, and your property is valued, it won't matter what value is put on it; only one in 100 buyers will show interest in it. If the program has been finished and all the facilities are upgraded and in a functioning form, you will find that 90 per cent of potential buyers capable of buying that property will be engaged. These are serious challenges. I say to Senator Hanson, we talked about this and explored where there may have been other communities where these facilities could have gone, but I suspect, not knowing, that if the process were not managed properly we would get resistance in those other areas as well.

Central Queensland, and particularly the Shoalwater area, has been devoted to defence activities, but I want to make a point, Senator Hanson: the intent of these acquisitions was to try and get some land where particular operations could occur. This was to do with visibility and engagement. Right next-door to the areas to be acquired, through the barbed wire fence, there were massive tracts of land owned by the defence department—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres. But they couldn't clear the land, to make it look like the land through the fence, because of impacts on the environment. It was a most ridiculous situation. We wouldn't even have had to confront these challenges with this community. It will be a long time before society realises just what impact the Greens and their policies, with the support of their coalition partners, Labor, have had in our rural communities. But one day, when people are sitting naked and hungry—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're right! It will take you a long time—a long time to fix your impacts on the environment.

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

I can hardly hear myself think, Chair—please provide me with some protection from that shrill noise!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interjections are disorderly. Please continue, Senator O'Sullivan.

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

Here sit our colleagues in their cotton and their wool, with their leather shoes, sitting on a leather chair, with a timber desk, yet they would resist at every opportunity the ability of people in rural Australia to produce those commodities. As I have said before, Senator Hanson, my friends over here in this little corner have something you and I haven't got.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, you are directing your comments to the chair, of course?

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

Yes, I am. They have these fairies, Mr Acting Deputy President, with magic knitting needles and as soon as these knitting needles touch they generate all the energy you need for your house and out the end of them, just as we see with spiders and beautiful silk, come cotton and leather and wool—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sounds awesome!

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

It is. If Senator Dastyari were to join the Greens—and I believe membership, depending on which cult part of the Greens you go to, is not very expensive; if you're a bit short, Sam, I'll throw a couple of bob your way.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, will you please refer to senators by their correct title.

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

My apologies—it was a lapse and I apologise for it, Mr Acting Deputy President. In any event, that was one of the other challenges that occurred up in the Shoalwater Bay area. We had the land. When you can't confront those challenges, when there are other commonsense, practical solutions to these things, the government of the day—it won't matter who is on the leather, it won't matter who's in government, whether it is colleagues on the other side in coalition with the Greens—has to acquire land to broaden highways and byways and to run railways. We are about to embark on that massive generational signature project, Inland Rail—brought on, might I say, very proudly by members of the National Party in coalition with their colleagues; a transformational project that of course has been on the books for so many years but is now being delivered by this government. We will confront these same challenges again on land acquisition.

In closing, my contribution would be that I don't see any problem with calling for a review, and I do not mean some inquiry—I just mean the government of the day has to be involved in these matters. Our government should look carefully at how we go about it. Public engagement, as pointed out by Senator Hanson, is absolutely essential, and, if done properly—these are clever people—they will understand. These are dedicated Australians who understand that, from time to time, there is a need to acquire land as we expand the facilities and infrastructure of our nation, as with Defence's relations with another country. By sitting with them, speaking rationally and hearing what they have to say, we can, on occasion, dismantle some of the concerns that they have and some of the pressures that these things bring into their lives. If they are willing to transition from their land to some other point and if the transactions happen on just terms, as we have heard both in The Castle and in the reading of the Constitution, I don't think we'll be confronted as frequently with the circumstances we found ourselves in around Shoalwater Bay in Central Queensland.

I do support the development of the defence training industry on any terms up in that part of the world. It is a big industry. It employs a lot of people, and billions of dollars are invested in Central Queensland. So there are stakeholders in decisions like this beyond the landowners in Shoalwater Bay, even though, in my view, they are the most important in the consultation process. There are businesses in Townsville, Charters Towers and Rockhampton that rely significantly on the activities around defence training in particular in that part of the world. Given that the Greens and the opposition are determined to shut down the black coal industry in that region of my home state, we need to continue to look at development and investment that will offset and mitigate the impacts of their poor public policy. I agree with the spirit of the amendment. I don't think it's necessary. I think a review of how we approach these things culturally is more important. (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017, which has been presented to the Senate by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As Senator O'Sullivan just said, we understand why this bill has been put forward for consideration by the party. It's a reaction to the events that occurred earlier this year surrounding the Department of Defence's flawed process to acquire land to enable the expansion of two training areas in North Queensland—the Townsville Field Training Area and the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The department wrote letters to property owners outlining Defence's needs for land and how acquisition of their property, properly compensated, would assist in meeting these needs. The community was of course outraged, as you would understand, Acting Deputy President Williams. Prime agricultural land was being eyed off for military training use, forcing families to leave their land, which, in some cases, had been held by them for generations. After enough pressure from Labor, the Minister for Defence finally stepped in. I think it would be worthwhile commenting on the role of shadow minister Fitzgibbon in this area, because he did some terrific work on behalf of property owners in Queensland to bring the issue into the public arena and put that pressure on the Minister for Defence.

Finally, a statement was made that there would be no compulsory acquisition of properties surrounding the existing training areas. When asked about Defence's processes for land acquisition at estimates in February, the minister's response to a question on notice was:

Compulsory land acquisition was considered as one option during initial planning. It was always the preference to purchase land from willing sellers off the open market, and as announced in February 2017 land will only be purchased from willing sellers.

That was question No. 60 from April 2017. The minister eventually made a decision in this case regarding land acquisition to only acquire land from willing sellers. That avoids the need to consider compulsory acquisition and the public purpose test. It is not clear how the proposed changes to the definition of 'public purpose' would assist in these types of considerations where ministers are required to consider the overall public benefit and purpose in every decision they make.

Senator Hanson, while the defence minister certainly made a mess of the acquisition of land, we do not believe at this stage that the implications of this bill have been thought through. It was introduced yesterday afternoon, and we understand there has not been consultation at this stage with the Australian Government Solicitor and, of course, with a broad range of stakeholders and a broad section of landholders across this country. We are of the belief at this point that those are the sorts of things that ought to occur before a full consideration of this legislation.

There are significant judicial precedents regarding land acquisition. The act that Senator Hanson is seeking to amend is almost 30 years old, and there are a number of precedents of Commonwealth over-reach that have been successfully challenged in the courts. Labor believe we need to be conscious of those precedents which allow the Commonwealth to acquire land where it is necessary and to provide appropriate compensation. This bill would complicate all of those former precedents and, for that reason, at this stage, the Labor Party cannot support this legislation.

Question negatived.