Self's Point Land Act 1951

Resumption and divestiture: The Act operates by repealing the earlier vesting of the red land in the Hobart City Council under the Hobart Corporation Act 1947 (s 2(1)) and directly divesting the Cemetery trustees of any interest they held (s 2(2)). The land then becomes Crown land “free from any reservation, duty, trust, or interest whatsoever” (s 2(4)). This is a strong form of compulsory acquisition: no ongoing easements, native title claims (though not mentioned), or other encumbrances survive. The former owners retain a right to compensation only for “improvements” on the land, not for the land value itself (s 2(3)). Compensation is determined under the Land Acquisition Act 1993 if not agreed with the Minister.

Reclamation and extinguishment of public rights: Section 3 gives the Governor the power to reclaim the green land (the riverbed area) from the River Derwent. Before or during reclamation, the Governor may by proclamation extinguish public rights of navigation, fishing, and any other public rights in that land. This is a sovereign power that removes public access rights without further legislative approval. Once reclaimed, the boundary of the City of Hobart extends to the new high-water mark (s 3(3)).

Statutory purpose lock: The most important concept is the restricted disposal regime in s 4(1). The red and green land can only be dealt with under section 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1976 (which provides for leases, licences, and permits over Crown land, not freehold sale unless specifically authorised) and only for one or more of the listed purposes. This creates a permanent statutory zoning that overrides local planning schemes and other land use laws unless subsequently amended. The list includes roads, railways, transmission lines, storage of alternative fuel/gas/industrial chemicals/oil, manufacturing and packaging of those substances, associated infrastructure, municipal sewage works, and wharves for TasPorts. Notably, there is no power to sell the land to a private entity for general development, except that land reserved for sewage disposal works may be sold to the Hobart City Council (s 4(2)). This means the land is effectively locked into industrial and port-related uses in perpetuity unless future legislation changes the permitted purposes.

Definitions in s 4(3): The Act defines “alternative fuel” as any fuel not composed of or derived from a fossil fuel. This is a residual definition: it includes biofuels, hydrogen, ammonia, and any synthetic fuel, but excludes natural gas, coal, and oil unless processed to a point where the origin is lost. “Gas” is defined by reference to the Gas Safety Act 2019, which generally covers natural gas and LPG but also biogas and hydrogen if they fall under that regulatory regime. “Industrial chemical” is very broad: “any chemical that has an industrial use.” “Manufacture” includes separation, distillation, refining, remixing, breaking up, and sorting, but does not require chemical transformation - even sorting or repackaging qualifies. “Oil” is defined broadly to include any oil, spirit from oil, coal tar, and mixtures with other substances, effectively covering all petroleum products and coal derivatives.

Borrowing limit: The Treasurer may borrow $50,000 (plus any further sums Parliament approves). In 1951 dollars that was substantial, but now the $50,000 figure is a statutory ceiling that can only be exceeded with fresh Parliamentary appropriation. This imposes a de facto cap on government expenditure under the Act unless Parliament votes more money, which constrains large-scale reclamation or compensation payouts.

The Act directly affects the Hobart City Council (the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Hobart) and the trustees of the Hobart Public Cemetery, who were divested of the red land. They are entitled to compensation for improvements, which could require valuation of structures, drainage, roads, or landscaping they had installed. The Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (TasPorts) is a direct beneficiary, as wharves and “other purposes” of TasPorts are a permitted use. The Transport Commission (now likely TasRail or a successor body) is required to construct a railway line from the Main Line near New Town Station into the land if the Minister requires it (s 7). The Hobart City Council must provide water supply and sewerage for the land on terms agreed with the Minister (s 8). The Minister (responsible for Crown lands) and the Treasurer (borrowing and payments) are the key government decision-makers. Potential users of the land - companies in the fuel, gas, chemical, and logistics sectors - are indirectly affected because the permitted uses they can propose are limited to those in s 4(1). A business wanting to use the site for, say, a data centre, cold storage, or warehousing for non-chemical goods would be unable to obtain a lease or licence unless the purpose fits the statutory list. The public loses any pre-existing rights of navigation and fishing over the green land if the Governor issues a proclamation extinguishing them (s 3(2)). Ratepayers of Hobart bear the cost of the borrowing, as the $50,000 (plus any further sums) is borrowed by the Treasurer, presumably serviced from consolidated revenue or loan funds. The broader community in the Self’s Point area may experience increased heavy vehicle traffic, emissions, and visual impacts from the industrial uses permitted, but the Act provides no community consultation or environmental assessment requirements.

Duty of Transport Commission: Section 7 obliges the Transport Commission (now probably TasRail) to construct a railway line and associated works on the land when required by the Minister. The Commission must build what the Minister requires, and is entitled to be paid the cost from borrowed moneys. This imposes a mandatory infrastructure delivery obligation; the Commission has no discretion to refuse on operational or financial grounds.

Duty of Hobart City Council: Section 8 requires the Council to provide a supply of water and a system of sewerage for the red and green land upon terms agreed with the Minister. The Council must negotiate and provide these services, and the Minister may agree to payments that will be made from borrowings. The Council cannot refuse to service the land; the financial arrangement is a matter of negotiation, but the service provision itself is mandatory.

Right to compensation: The divested owners (the Council and the Cemetery trustees) have a right to receive compensation for “improvements” on the land they lost (s 2(3)). The amount is determined by agreement with the Minister, and if not agreed, as a disputed claim under the Land Acquisition Act 1993. The Act does not provide compensation for the land value itself, only for improvements. This is unusual because compulsory acquisition usually requires compensation for the value of the land, but here the vesting is repealed or divested, not acquired under a standard acquisition act. The claimants bear the burden of proving the value of their improvements and the onus of initiating dispute resolution under the Land Acquisition Act if no agreement is reached.

Right to use the land (limited): The Crown may grant leases or licences under section 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1976 for the permitted purposes. A lessee or licensee has the right to use the land for those purposes, but cannot use it for any other purpose. The rights are tied to the statutory list; any deviation would require an amendment to the Act or a fresh Crown grant outside s 6, which may not be legally possible given the statutory lock.

Right of the Governor to extinguish public rights: The Governor may, by proclamation, extinguish public rights of navigation, fishing, and any other public rights over the green land (s 3(2)). This is a unilateral power with no appeal mechanism in the Act. Affected parties (fishers, boaters, conservation groups) have no statutory right to object or seek compensation.

Right of the Minister to require works: The Minister can require the Transport Commission to build a railway (s 7) and can agree to payments for water/sewerage (s 8). The Minister also decides compensation (subject to dispute) and presumably initiates borrowing requests.

Rights of the Treasurer: The Treasurer may borrow up to $50,000 and any further sums Parliament approves (s 9). The borrowing power is permissive, not mandatory. The Treasurer controls which payments are treated as capital (borrowed) or revenue.

The Self’s Point Land Act 1951 contains no offence provisions, penalties, or enforcement mechanisms. It is a facilitative and compulsory acquisition statute; it does not establish a regulatory scheme with inspectors, fines, or court orders. Enforcement of the restrictions on land use (the s 4(1) permitted purposes) would rely on the Crown Lands Act 1976, under which any lease or licence is granted. Breach of a lease or licence condition (using the land for a non-permitted purpose) would be a breach of the Crown Lands Act, not this Act. The Crown Lands Act 1976 contains its own enforcement provisions, including powers of re-entry, forfeiture, and penalties for unauthorised occupation or use of Crown land. However, the ban on disposal except under s 6 and only for the listed purposes is a direct statutory restriction on the Crown itself: the Minister cannot grant a lease for a non-permitted purpose without exceeding the power granted by s 4(1). A purported grant for a non-permitted purpose would be ultra vires and void. Private citizens could seek judicial review of any such decision. The Act also imposes no penalty on the Hobart City Council or the Transport Commission for failing to provide water/sewerage or build a railway; the duty is mandatory but unenforceable by injunction unless a court implies a statutory duty owed to a specific person, which is unlikely given the public infrastructure context. The only financial penalty implicit in the Act is the cap on borrowing: if the Treasurer borrows more than $50,000 without Parliamentary approval, that borrowing would be unauthorised and possibly unlawful under the Financial Management Act or similar. But the Act itself does not criminalise such borrowing; it merely restricts the power. In practice, enforcement of the land use restrictions falls to the Crown Lands administrator under the 1976 Act, and disputes over compensation are resolved through the Land Acquisition Act 1993 mechanisms, not through this Act.

The Act is to be read and construed as one with the Crown Lands Act 1976 (s 1(2)), meaning the two Acts form a single code for these parcels of land. Any reference to Crown land, leases, or licences in this Act must be interpreted consistently with the 1976 Act. The Crown Lands Act 1976 governs the form of disposal (s 6 of that Act deals with leases and licences), and its procedures for applications, valuations, and rents apply. The Land Acquisition Act 1993 is incorporated by reference for disputed compensation claims (s 2(3)). That Act provides the mechanism for arbitration or court determination of compensation if the Minister and the claimant cannot agree on the amount for improvements. The Hobart Corporation Act 1947 is the predecessor Act whose vesting in the Council is repealed by s 2(1); the seventh schedule of that Act originally identified the land. The connection is severed except for historical reference. The Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 is specifically overridden in s 6, which allows the council to divert or widen the road outside the red land despite anything to the contrary in that Act. This gives the council a special power to modify the highway without following the normal procedures under the 1982 Act. The Gas Safety Act 2019 defines “gas” for the purposes of s 4(3). This means the scope of permitted uses for gas storage and manufacturing changes if the Gas Safety Act amendments alter the definition of gas. The same dynamic applies to any Act that repeals or amends the Crown Lands Act 1976 or Land Acquisition Act 1993 references; by being read as one, changes to those Acts automatically apply to this Act. The Crown Lands Act 1976 itself has been amended several times, and the 2009 amendments to this Act updated the cross-reference from the now-repealed Crown Lands Act 1935 to the 1976 Act. The interaction with planning laws is not mentioned, but because the land is Crown land and the use is locked into the s 4(1) purposes, any local planning scheme that purports to restrict heavy industrial use would likely be ineffective as the Act is specific and later in time (though note the original 1951 Act predates modern planning legislation). The Public Health Act, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), and Tasmanian environmental laws are not mentioned, so industrial uses remain subject to those general laws, but the Act does not grant any exemption from them.

The Act has been amended five times. No. 78 of 1963 added subsection 4(3) (the definitions of manufacture and oil) and amended s 4(1) to include “oil” and manufacturing in the permitted purposes. This was a significant expansion from the original 1951 list, which only mentioned roads, railways, drainage, sewers, transmission lines, and municipal sewage works. The 1963 amendment opened the door to petroleum processing. No. 68 of 1994 amended s 2(3) to refer to the Land Acquisition Act 1993 (replacing the earlier reference to the Land Acquisition Act 1947 or similar). No. 41 of 2005 repealed s 5 entirely (that section had dealt with the transfer of the land to the Transport Commission and was obsolete) and amended s 4(1)(d) to replace the earlier reference to the Hobart Marine Board with “Wharves and other purposes of the Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty. Ltd. (ACN 114 161 938)”. This reflects the corporatisation of port operations. No. 11 of 2009 was the most substantial amendment: it updated references from the repealed Crown Lands Act 1935 to the Crown Lands Act 1976 throughout (ss 1(2), 2(4), 4(1), 4(2), s 6, s 7 (indirectly via the meaning of Crown land)). It rewrote s 4(1)(b) by adding the definitions and broad categories for “alternative fuel, gas, industrial chemicals or oil” and added new paragraphs (ba), (bb), (bc) covering manufacture, packaging, and infrastructure. It also added the definitions of “alternative fuel”, “gas”, “industrial chemical” in s 4(3), along with the corresponding references. The 2009 amendment expanded the statutory purposes beyond oil to include all alternative fuels and industrial chemicals, reflecting policy shifts towards biofuels and energy security. No. 3 of 2019 amended the definition of “gas” in s 4(3) to refer to the Gas Safety Act 2019 (previously it referred to the earlier Gas Act 2000 or similar). This ensures the definition tracks current gas safety regulation. The Act has not been substantially amended since 2019, though the borrowing limit of $50,000 (s 9) has never been updated for inflation, which would now be a trivial amount. Any major reclamation or compensation would require separate Parliamentary approval.

The Act itself has not generated significant reported litigation, at least as evidenced by the official source text, which lists no cases. However, the land in question (Self’s Point) has been the subject of controversy and legal disputes over the proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill, storage of woodchips, and a large gas storage facility (the “Hobart Gas Storage Facility” project). In 2006-2007, the State Government sought to use the land for a natural gas storage cavern, which led to community opposition and environmental assessment proceedings under the Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Supreme Court. Those cases turned on the interpretation of the permitted purposes under s 4(1) before the 2009 amendments, which at the time only allowed storage of “oil” and did not include “gas”. The original 1951 text did not mention gas at all; “oil” was the only fuel storage permitted. The proposed gas storage project was therefore arguably outside the statutory purposes. The 2009 amendment added “gas” to the list, retroactively validating such uses. There may have been litigation challenging the compensation determination for the Cemetery trustees, but no reported decisions are flagged. Any compensation dispute under s 2(3) would be determined under the Land Acquisition Act 1993, which has its own litigation history. The extinguishment of public rights under s 3(2) could theoretically be challenged as a breach of the public trust doctrine, but no such case is noted. The lack of litigation history does not mean the Act is uncontroversial; it means disputes have been resolved through administrative processes or the planning tribunal rather than under the Act itself. The 2009 amendment was likely a direct response to legal uncertainty over whether gas storage was permitted, suggesting that prior to 2009 the government feared litigation would block its project. The Act’s interaction with the Crown Lands Act 1976 might also produce lease interpretation disputes, but again no reported decisions.

1. Permitted uses are exhaustive and narrowly defined. The s 4(1) list is the only purposes for which the land can be dealt with under the Crown Lands Act 1976. There is no “incidental” catch-all. A lease for a convenience store to serve workers on site would arguably not be permitted unless it falls under an infrastructure purpose. The definition of “manufacture” includes processing and packaging, but does it include retail? Unlikely.

2. The $50,000 borrowing cap is extremely low by modern standards. In 2025 dollars, that is roughly $1-2 million, insufficient for any major reclamation or railway construction. The Act requires “such other sums as Parliament may hereafter approve”, so any significant project needs a separate appropriation Act. This creates a risk that cost overruns may not be covered, and the government may need to patch funding from other sources, which could be challenged as contrary to s 9.

3. “Alternative fuel” excludes fossil fuels but could include nuclear-derived fuels? The definition: “any fuel that is not composed of or derived from a fossil fuel.” Hydrogen produced from electrolysis using renewable energy qualifies. Hydrogen from steam methane reforming (fossil fuel) would not, because it is derived from a fossil fuel. But nuclear-generated hydrogen (using high-temperature electrolysis from a nuclear plant) would be alternative fuel. Radioactive materials themselves are not fuels in the ordinary sense, but if processed into a fuel, they would not be derived from a fossil fuel. The Act does not exclude nuclear. Hypothetically, the land could be used for thorium fuel storage.

4. “Industrial chemical” is defined as “any chemical that has an industrial use.” This is circular and extremely broad. It includes bleach, ammonia, acids, solvents, even water if used in an industrial process. Almost any substance can be an industrial chemical. The chain of permitted uses (storage, manufacture, packaging) is correspondingly broad, but note that “storage of industrial chemicals” includes storage of hazardous substances, but the Act provides no environmental safety provisions. A lease for a hazardous waste facility might be argued as “storage of industrial chemicals”, but “waste” might not be considered a “chemical” in the industrial sense.

5. Public rights of navigation and fishing can be extinguished without compensation. Section 3(2) gives the Governor power to extinguish public rights over the green land (the reclaimed area) by proclamation. No compensation is payable to the public or to specific fishers or boaters. This could affect commercial fishing operations or recreational boating access indefinitely.

6. The land is deemed free from any reservation, duty, trust, or interest. Section 2(4) extinguishes all interests including any native title rights or claims, easements, or covenants. Existing utility easements (e.g., for water pipes, electricity) would be extinguished unless they were on the “improvements” compensated under s 2(3). This could cause legal uncertainty for third-party infrastructure crossing the land.

7. The railway duty is mandatory but unfunded except via borrowing. The Transport Commission must build the railway if the Minister requires it, but the borrowing limit may be exhausted, leaving the Commission to build without guaranteed payment. The Act says the Commission “shall be entitled to be paid the cost … out of moneys borrowed under section nine”. If those moneys are insufficient, the Commission may have to carry the cost until further borrowing is approved, creating a liability.

8. No sunset or review clause. The Act has no repeal date or mandatory review. The statutory purpose lock lasts indefinitely unless Parliament amends the Act. This makes the land a permanent enclave of heavy industry and port use, immune to changing planning policy or community sentiment.

Compliance with the Self’s Point Land Act 1951 depends on your role. For a person or corporation seeking to use the land: you must apply for a lease or licence under section 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1976. The application will be assessed by the Crown Land Services division of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (or successor). The lease or licence must be for one or more of the purposes listed in s 4(1). You must demonstrate that your proposed use falls within the defined terms (e.g., “storage of alternative fuel” requires that the fuel is not fossil-fuel-derived, and you must meet the definition of “alternative fuel” in s 4(3)). If your use involves manufacturing, ensure the process fits the broad definition (separation, distillation, mixing, sorting, etc.). The lease or licence will include standard Crown land conditions, including rent, term, and use restrictions. You cannot use the land for any other purpose, and you must comply with all other applicable laws (environmental, planning, health, safety) - the Act does not exempt you from them. For the Hobart City Council complying with its duty to provide water and sewerage under s 8: you must negotiate terms with the Minister, reach a written agreement, and then provide the infrastructure. If you cannot agree, the Minister may have recourse to dispute resolution outside the Act. The Council should ensure that any payment it receives from the Minister is treated as capital by the Treasurer, if that is the Minister’s intention. For the Transport Commission (now TasRail) complying with s 7: if the Minister issues a requirement in writing, you must construct the railway line and associated works. You should maintain records of costs incurred, because you are entitled to be paid from borrowed moneys. If the borrowed moneys are insufficient, you may need to request the Treasurer to seek further Parliamentary approval. For the Minister and government officials: ensure that any disposal of the land (lease, licence, or sale to the Council for sewage works) is done under section 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1976. Do not purport to sell or lease the land for any purpose not in s 4(1). If you need to extinguish public rights over the green land, issue a proclamation under s 3(2) before or during reclamation. Ensure compensation for improvements (s 2(3)) is paid in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act 1993 if not agreed. Manage borrowing: do not exceed $50,000 without new Parliamentary approval. If additional funds are needed, seek a separate appropriation Act. For the Treasurer: maintain a ledger of all borrowing and expenditure under s 9, distinguishing between capital and revenue items. For any party affected by a compensation determination: follow the procedures of the Land Acquisition Act 1993 for disputed claims. For the trustees of the Hobart Public Cemetery and the Hobart City Council: your interest in the land has been extinguished. You may only claim compensation for improvements. Do not attempt to assert any ongoing rights over the land. For the public: if the Governor issues a proclamation under s 3(2), public rights of navigation and fishing over that area cease. You may wish to challenge the validity of the proclamation in a court on administrative law grounds if the Governor exceeded power, but the Act itself gives no specific right of appeal.