Page 1761 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: For one reason, it is my understanding that the writs have not actually been served on the ACT. Another reason, if another reason were needed, is that, when such writs are served, then clearly they are a matter for the courts. I do not believe that it is useful to go into the detail, even if such detail were available, outside of that process. It is my understanding that the claim that has been lodged by the Ngunnawal people involves, in the first part, the Commonwealth Government; in the second part, the New South Wales Government; and, in the third part, the ACT Government. So whatever response is made to that must be made in a cooperative manner.
Mr De Domenico has raised reported comments by the person who has lodged the writ with the High Court. I do not want to comment on those comments because I believe that that debate must take place elsewhere. I am sure that members can understand that. Once a writ is issued it is a very technical legal matter that clearly has to be dealt with in cooperation with those other two governments. I have made it clear that the advice which I have had is that any Mabo-style land claim is unlikely to affect the residential, commercial or rural leases in the ACT.
Mr Humphries: Will you table it, then?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I do not have the advice with me - - -
Mr Humphries: Well, later? Will you table it later?
MS FOLLETT: I hear calls to table it. I will - - -
Mr Connolly: You want our advice in a constitutional challenge tabled in this place before litigation? That is smart!
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Humphries: Well, tell it to us privately.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Berry: What for?
Mr Humphries: Don't you trust us?
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I say again, as I said in answer to Mrs Carnell's question, that if there were to be such a claim, and in the most unlikely event that such a claim were to be successful, the question of compensation is a question for government, not for the lessees. Members opposite can go around trying to frighten lessees till the cows come home, but those remain the facts. I have explained to them how this matter must be progressed, in my view, at a national level; but certainly, in the light of this claim, at a level in which there is full cooperation between the three governments against whom the claim is made. I think that is entirely reasonable and I would defy members opposite to find another way of handling it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .