Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 10 August 2004
Page: 26047

Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) (6:13 PM) —I repeat the point I made to Senator Harris: the advice I have is that the provisions that exist in the agreement are consistent with existing customary international law. So a new liability, as being asserted by Senator Brown, flowing from this agreement is not created. Article 11.7 does provide expropriation, but it also provides that it must be:

(a) for a public purpose—

I did not read the full list before but I will now, seeing that it is still being pursued at this time by Senator Brown—

(b) in a non-discriminatory manner;

(c) on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation; and

(d) in accordance with due process of law.

In terms of expropriation that is what I would have thought Senator Brown would be requiring. In relation to this third amendment of Senator Brown's that we are debating, as we move into about our sixth hour of debate, it is the view of the government that it does not provide additional support and that the protection is already there for that provision of indirect expropriation, including the definitions that I referred to for Senator Harris. Therefore the amendment proposed by the Greens does not add value and, on that basis, they have not convinced the government that passage of their amendment is warranted.