Territory Stories

Debates Day 2 - 23 April 1975



Debates Day 2 - 23 April 1975

Other title

Parliamentary Record 3


Northern Territory. Department of the Legislative Assembly


Debates for 1st Assembly 1974 - 1977; Parliamentary Record; ParliamentNT; 1st Assembly 1974 - 1977




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name


Place of publication



pages 215 - 227

File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

226 must relate to the purposes specifically mentioned which are the drying or curing of fish or manufacturing or industrial processes. At this point, I might quote from section 108 and also from the legal advising which has been given in respect of this. Section 108 (1) as it stands says; "The Administrator may, under and subject to the regulations, grant a licence to any person to occupy any particular crown lands for the purpose of drying or of curing fish or for any manufacturing or industrial purposes or for any other purpose prescribed". Section 103 (1) (a) and section 1 09A of the ordinance provide for the granting of licences for the use and occupation of reserve land, firstly for the recreation or amusement of the public; secondly, for national or public parks or gardens; and, thirdly, for cultivation purposes. As a result of research into the background of these provisions, it was discovered that the reference to subparagraph (xiii) of section 103 (1) (a) was originally intended to be a reference to what is now subparagraph (xiv). The error apparently occurred when a new subparagraph was inserted during committee stages. Hansard No.6 of February 1964, page 1569 and Hansard No.7 of May 1964, pages 2098 and 2105, will confirm the error. Clearly the intention was to permit the Administrator to grant licences over land included in a reserve for any purpose in relation to the Northern Territory as the Governor-General thought fit. Consequently, clause 7 of the bill amends section 108 so that the Administrator may grant occupation licences for any purpose as he sees fit. That was a reference to section 108 and the legal advising on that part is as follows: "Section 108 is a somewhat curious provision in giving a specific mention to a purpose of drying or curing fish and then lumping it in with any manufacturing or industrial purpose. Other purpose mentioned in the section is to be read, ejusdem generis, with the purposes already expressed in the section and the regulation-making power in this regard is not at large. Accordingly, in my view, when regulation 75 purports to add recreation or garden purposes, the regulation is ultra vires to the Act except insofar as garden purposes of a particular type may be shown to be an industrial venture". This question arose when the Sun Club sought a temporary occupation licence for a short term over some crown land so that they could carry on while other matters were being considered. This was the legal DEBATES-Wednesday 23 April 1975 advising that came from the AttorneyGeneral's Department at the time; it said that, unless they went in for drying or curing fish at the same time, they would not be entitled to the occupation licence. It is not intended to meet their particular case which is now being met in other ways, but the weakness in the provision of section 108 of the ordinance was shown up by the research that was done at that time. Clause 8 will amend section 109 to correct the error previously mentioned about the issue of occupation licences on reserve land. I believe that these matters have been well researched. The Crown Lands Ordinance is one which I am fairly familiar with and some of the amendments that are required go back in history for perhaps up to 10 or 11 years. It's time we put the statute book in order. Debate adjourned. POLICE AND POLICE OFFENCES BILL (Serial 16) JUSTICES BILL (Serial 24) Bills, by leave, presented and read a first time together. Mr EVERINGHAM: I move that the bills be now read a second time. I will refer to the Justices Bill because amendments proposed to both ordinances are exactly the same. This is a very minor technical amendment to both bills to enable the more easy disposition of lost property. I would like to emphasise that the amendments proposed by these bills were considered and action was taken to institute the drafting of these amendments prior to the cyclone. This action has not been precipitated by and is in no way connected with the happening of the cyclone and is not intended to make the job of the police any easier simply because of the cyclone. This has been a problem for some years past and it will greatly assist the police and the courts in their administration of lost property if these 2 bills can be passed. Section BOB of the Justices Ordinance empowers a court of summary jurisdiction to make an order for the delivery of property in the possession of the police or a court in connection with criminal matters or in the course of duty to the person appearing to be the owner thereof. It may also make such order if it thinks fit for the disposal of such property if