Palmer claims discrimination
David Wroe and Peter Ker
March 16
MINING billionaire Clive Palmer claimed yesterday the federal government was discriminating against his company Queensland Nickel as he vowed to press ahead with his High Court challenge against the carbon tax.
His remarks came as legal experts confirmed there were constitutional grounds on which the carbon tax could be challenged, though it was not clear whether any such case could succeed.
Mr Palmer told The Age yesterday that his legal advice would be finalised by the end of next week and the Queensland Nickel board would probably lodge documents with the High Court by April.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard, along with several senior colleagues, insisted that the carbon tax was legally watertight.
Mr Palmer said his lawyers had advised him there were several avenues under which the carbon tax was unconstitutional. But one particular issue was that his company was getting less compensation under the carbon tax than rivals BHP Billiton and Glencore.
''You can't treat citizens that way,'' he said. ''You can't discriminate. I guess a company is like a person. You can't discriminate based on race, based on colour, based on ethnicity.
''You can't be discriminated [against] based on what you actually do either. If you're a doctor or a lawyer, you pay the same tax.''
He declined to say who was giving him legal advice, except that they were ''all senior counsels with experience in the High Court''.
His lawyers told him the tax was unconstitutional and ''we've got an obligation to those families [employed at Queensland Nickel] to act on that legal advice'', he added.
Ms Gillard said the government had ''taken careful constitutional advice and legal advice at every stage'' as it developed its legislation.
A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet rejected Mr Palmer's claim that his company would get less compensation, and the government was still awaiting audited data from nickel producers that would then be included in the compensation regulations.
Greg Craven, a law professor and vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, said the carbon tax was ''inherently complicated'' and ''was always going to end up in the High Court''.
It raised questions about the scope of taxation power, the rights of the states, the Commonwealth's power to make laws binding the states, and the compulsory acquisition of property.
''If you were looking for a law that was born to be challenged, this is it, because there are billions of dollars at stake.''
Roland Burt, a principal at Macpherson and Kelley Lawyers, singled out three potential avenues for a challenge, involving Commonwealth external powers, the federal government's power to impose taxes on the states, and the issue of whether tax law could be bundled up with other legislation. ''Clive Palmer will have some of the best legal minds in the country at his disposal and they will certainly put a powerful case,'' he said. ''But my guess is the government has thought about it all carefully enough to design it in a way that will probably - but by no means certainly - survive the challenge.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/palmer-claims-discrimination-20120315-1v89f.html#ixzz1pDYbPCwP
Forum
Pages: 
