Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG ( Macquarie Fields ) ( 21:49 : 1 ): I speak on the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Amendment Bill 2016. One of the tenets of a free and strong democracy is that of property ownership and the acquisition or disposal of such property. It must be done in a free market exchange between buyer and seller or, where the acquisition is for greater public good, it should be done on just terms. We can argue about the semantic definition of "just terms" but there is likely to be a wide spectrum of definitions. However, the core principles of the common person would understand this to be what is fair and/or reasonable.
There seems to be a little irony in the bill before us. If just terms of being fair and reasonable had been the core principles of the Baird Liberal Government's compulsory acquisitions and the methods used to obtain personal property, perhaps we would not be here to debate this bill at all. The fact that we are here shows that there are and have been deficiencies in the Baird Liberal Government's approach to compulsory acquisition and its ability to treat people in our communities in a fair and reasonable manner. New South Wales Labor supports the intent of this bill. We will move some reasonable and fair amendments to make the just terms even more just for the many families who have had to relocate from their homes of many years—and in some cases decades—and depart from their established friendships and social networks. My colleagues and the shadow Minister for Finance, Services and Property and shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure have already outlined Labor's amendments, and a number of my other colleagues have already spoken in favour of them.
I will not repeat those points, but I will focus on how we arrived at this point, what it says about the relationship between the bureaucracy and the Ministry and the level of empathy—or, rather, the lack thereof—its actions have shown to the public. I find it difficult to understand that a Government bureaucracy would undertake any unjust or unfair actions on the public over an extended period of time without the knowledge of the Minister and his or her office, especially when the issue is contentious and has a personal impact on the lives of those we represent. There are few issues more personal than being forcibly told to move out of your home, a place of many memories, joyous celebrations and happy times. There is nothing in the current Act, of course, that prevents fair and reasonable action from taking place. When the properties are unfairly acquired and the situation is prolonged, there are two main reasons to explain why this has been allowed to happen.
The first is that the Minister involved directly or indirectly supports the unfair methods that have been applied to compulsorily acquire properties. No loyal and experienced public servant aims to defy their Minister by taking prolonged actions that cause political pain in the short term or long term. It does not make sense that this situation would occur without some sort of approval or support from the Minister and their office. But if this were the case, the second reason is that the Minister is not in control of their bureaucracy and the public is not getting the best representation it deserves. It would be a sad indictment on our democracy if elected representatives were merely microphones for their bureaucracies.
When hardworking people are being short-changed, which has been the case in the Baird Liberal Government's non-empathetic compulsory acquisition of their properties, it is the role of members of Parliament to stand up to tell their bureaucracies that this is not appropriate. When this does not happen, people have a right to feel angry and short-changed both financially and personally in the public representation they are receiving. It is no wonder that situations like this make people feel even more disenchanted with the political process and political institutions, and continue to drive them to minor parties that only offer false hope. Whilst Labor welcomes the introduction of this bill, and hopefully our reasonable amendments will be supported, it does not take away the fact that the Baird Liberal Government has only come to this point because it was forced to, not because it wanted to do the right thing. The Government was happy to acquire people's homes but not on just terms. It was only when the political pressure got too great that the Government introduced this bill. If the public had been treated on just terms then we may have not needed it at all.
