 |
Other Parliamentary SpeechesThis page is dedicated to Peter's speeches during parliament that do not fall under Questions or Questions without notice. They range from debating legislation, reporting on events or issues in his seat of Southport and his Ministerial Statements.
Private Property Protection Bill Land Acquisition Amendment Bill |
![]() |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on Aug 18 2004 |
| Other Speeches >> |
Private Property Protection Bill Land Acquisition Amendment Bill
Mr LAWLOR (Southport-ALP) (8.08 p.m.): I rise to oppose the two bills in this cognate debate. I support the comments made by various speakers on this side of House. I want to highlight the hypocrisy of the National Party and provide an example of that hypocrisy. We have seen them tonight go on about the sacredness of private property. The member for Burnett went on about the dreadful Beattie government and what it is going to do to private property rights. The member for Toowoomba South talked about dealing with people fairly and straight down the middle.
The Private Property Protection Bill mentions that the bill commits this parliament to a system of fair compensation where through the passage of properly considered legislation individual property owners suffer substantial loss of their property rights for the benefit of the wider community. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill says that it recognises from time to time that governments will need to resume private land for community purposes. It ensures that such resumption of private property is carried out fairly and that the state properly compensates the individual for the loss suffered for the community benefit.
Mr Seeney: Why are you against that?
Mr LAWLOR: Bear with me. The explanatory notes state-
Ensure compensation provisions for State Government land resumptions are clear and take into account factors such as:
Market value I draw the House's attention to the Nerang River Entrance Development Act 1984. In that act, I particularly draw the House's attention-members will remember of course that that was during the period of the Bjelke-Petersen government; the member for Callide would have a vivid memory of that no doubt-to paragraph 9, which states-
Vesting of certain lands in the Crown. (1) All those lands in the parish of Currigee, town of Moondarewa, alienated by the Crown in fee simple shall on the commencement of this Act and by force of this Act be divested from the owners thereof and vest in the Crown without the making of any compensation in respect thereof.
If hypocrisy was an Olympic sport, the member for Callide would be the captain coach of the Australian side. The explanatory notes-
Mr Seeney interjected.
Mr LAWLOR: I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the National Party. The explanatory notes explain that there were 86 allotments, each averaging in excess of one acre, shown in the Titles Office as having registered proprietors. Originally, they were on South Stradbroke Island. With the northerly drift of the entrance of the Nerang River, a lot of that land was in fact eroded. But, as it moved north, some of it ended up on the northern end of the Spit. No-one is arguing about the building of the entrance to the seaway, but the act provides for the lands to revert to the Crown without payment of any compensation.
That is the issue.
The minister at the time, Mr Goleby, the Minister for Water Resources and Maritime Services, said, amongst other things-
18 Aug 2004 Private Property Protection Bill Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 1957. The payment of compensation for freehold lands acquired by the Crown or a statutory authority for public purposes is a well established policy embodied in statute law. However, the principles upon which the payment of compensation are based in the usual land acquisition are not present in this land acquisition.
He said, quite incorrectly I might add-
The area, although subdivided many years ago, is devoid of any development. Any development or use of the area by registered proprietors has long since become right out of the question. Owners have for all intents and purposes vacated any interest they may have had in the subdivided lots.
Last changed: [PUBLISHED_DATE] at 12:00 AM
Back
|
|
