Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Friday, 27 July 1906

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) . - The Minister has made the definite statement that the payment for properties transferred by virtue of the Constitution will be determined under this Bill. I hesitate to dogmatize in a matter involving a question of law, but it seems to me that as, under the Constitution, the properties were transferred absolutely, they cannot be dealt with by a Bill which relates only to properties acquired in the manner set out in the Bill. There is a difference between properties transferred, under the Constitution, and those which it isintended to acquire under this Bill. But. there is one matter to which Senator Keating made no reference. I allude to thequestion of severance, upon which Senator Symon dwelt at some length. It seemsto me that the argument is unanswerablethat where an estate fs injured by severanceit should, if it belong to a State, be placed in the same position as the estate of a private individual. Throughout this Bill we group States and private individuals together. We make no difference between them. If we run a road) through property belonging to a State, I see no reason why the State should not receive the same compensation as a private individual would get. I cannot understand the distinction. There is no reason for it. I point to the very ominous silence of the Minister regarding Senator Symon's criticism on this point. I trust that the Minister will see the force of it. If he is not able to agree to the elimination of the whole sub-clause, which I think ought to go out, I hope he will agree that the exemption as to severance should be omitted. t

Amendment (by Senator Sir Josiah Symon) proposed -

That the words " The State shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of the loss of any rights of dominion, taxation, or revenue, 'r lines 11 to 13, be left out.

Suggest corrections