Senate debates

Thursday, 14 September 2017

Bills

Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017; Second Reading

9:52 am

Photo of Barry O'SullivanBarry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share 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)

Comments

No comments