Will the Review of the NSW EP&A Act recognise Property Rights?

Alex Davidson stresses the vital importance of making submissions to a review of council regulations to ensure a protection of private property rights:

The NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – the legislation under which council LEPs and DCPs are made – is currently being reviewed, with submissions to the important scoping stage closing on 4 November. Given that this Act is what has led to the situation described by Damien Rogers (“Does the government now own your home”), it is vital that those of us who understand the importance of protecting property rights make submissions, especially since most submissions published so far have been from those calling for even more controls. One even suggested that the government should carry out all housing development, including identifying and buying suitable land – a proposal they acknowledge as “a bit socialist, but that’s the nature of planning.”

Although the current Act achieves its objects by overriding property rights, nowhere in the Act is there any overarching limitation upon the extent to which this may occur. It is a socialist’s dream come true, and represents the greatest attack on property rights in the history of NSW.

Under the Act, the right to exclusively control property has been gradually transferred from titleholders to the government – so slowly that most are blithely unaware of it. Bureaucrats have assumed the role of owner, leaving titleholders as little more than caretakers, obliged to follow government-set management plans. Entrepreneurship and creativity have been stifled or snuffed out altogether. Activities outside the limited range of bureaucratic vision are prohibited, leading to extremes such as the Hills Shire draft LEP 2010, which not only prohibits any land use not specifically identified, but also most of those it has specifically identified.

This undermines one of the most important, bedrock principles of our way of life – the concept of property rights. From biblical times – ‘Thou shalt not steal’ – to our modern society, property rights have always been recognised as the foundation of freedom and prosperity. Not only does private ownership serve to restrain democracy by marking out limits beyond which majority decision-making must not trespass; without clear and effective ownership rights, protected by law, the whole basis of our free enterprise society is undermined. Investment, contractual exchange, division of labour, and entrepreneurial activity – the generators of wealth – all depend upon clear and secure property rights, and are all put at risk when governments set them aside for whatever reason.

If enough of us make these sorts of points in submissions, they might just listen. If we do nothing, they definitely won’t listen. All they will have to go on is the growing pile of submissions from those completely ignorant of the dangers of socialising the ownership of property. Instead of focussing on “protecting the environment” ahead of all else, let’s make the catchcry: “First, protect property rights”.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Comments

[Pip]

1.

I prepared a bit of general very rough back grounding on Andy's article on Wind turbines that you might feel is a bit broad brush for this topic but since all these Earth Charter initiatives are linked it might be of interest to anyone who has the time.

BACK GROUND BRIEFING

My research indicates that a lot of groundwork went in early in China by the UN initiative of the Earth Summit, by Maurice Strong.

The Earth Charter, Australia was held in Canberra in 1999, the PDF is on-line and shows all the attendees. I’m not putting the link in because I’m having trouble with the download.

The general philosophy behind the Earth Charter and Rio-Summit to follow can be found here.

http://fatima.freehosting.net/Articles/Art4.htm

Behind Agenda 21 here:

http://agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/

The point of this is to say that the UN/US Agenda to encourage China towards Modernization and Development contained a lot of sweeteners and encouragement. This is why the US originally accepted the currency differential between the US dollar and the Chinese Yuan. They also encouraged China towards clean and green development giving China special dispensations based on its ONE CHILD China policy.

China has been mindful of appearing to play along. If you read the English language Newspapers coming from China you will be aware of China’s unhappiness that they feel they have been tricked into the dirty emissions manufacture of Solar panels and wind turbines by the UN/US but they know it is in their interests to play along for now.

The Russians and the Chinese do not accept the theory of CAGW but they are not going to rock the boat for now, especially as The Earth Charter crowd are targeting Brazil with even more intensity than China because they can get open access. Brazil of course is one of the BRIC's.

Maurice Strong who was the UN bureaucrat to organise the entire UNEP/IPCC conglomerate got caught up in the Iraq Oil for Food scandal with the Korean, Tongsun Park. From memory Togsun Park was convicted and Maurice Strong left the US to hideout in China where he maintains, it would seem, a watch on China meeting its bargain with the US/UN. China continues to placate these bodies by doing the minimal on renewables just to keep the West sweet. Refer to:

OCTOBER 11, 2008.

Maurice Strong
The U.N.'s Man of Mystery Is the godfather of the Kyoto treaty a public servant or a profiteer?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368007369524679.html

State Governments and Local Governments carry most of the load on Agenda 21. It is rarely mentioned in the press or a Federal Level. It has extended as far as it has because of wall to wall Labor Governments on the Eastern States since the Earth Charter was inaugerated here in 1999.

Is it possible that a Liberal/National Party Coalition would have the guts to stand up to the UN/US on this, or the International Community, as they always call it?

[Janet H. Thompson]

2.

Alex, thanks for this excellent piece.

I hate to appear cynical (and I did respond to Damien's call for help)...but! We are on a merry-go-round with submissions. We could write a submission (or more) every day of the year.

I believe these "consulation" processes are only facades of consultation, and it matters not whether we submit or not. If we do not make a submission, they claim that the submissions are overwhelmingly in favour of their action (or inaction).

If we DO make a submission, they claim that this is a very contentious issue as evident by the large numbers of submissions (which are "too many to read out, but the community is split --implied to be evenly -- on this issue..." even if our side's submissions outnumber the other side's by 3:1). They then either 1) extend the consultation process ad infinitum until the productive people fail to respond or 2) take unilateral action (who's going to stop them?).

What we need is an urgent and comprehensive piece of legislation (or I'm open to alternative suggestions!) that reaffirms the sanctity of private property ownership. In Western Australia, this bill has been written, but our Liberal/National Government has not released it publicly. Even after promising for three years that they would act on it, they have done nothing.

If Australia does not act now in a very tangible way to re-establish the foundations of a free and prosperous society, we'll be relegated to eternally writing submissions within the confines of our invisible cell walls.

Your own words are best here:

"Investment, contractual exchange, division of labour, and entrepreneurial activity – the generators of wealth – all depend upon clear and secure property rights, and are all put at risk when governments set them aside for whatever reason."

Thanks again! Very well said.

Cheers,
Janet

[Pip]

3.

The Victorian ALP Government got caught out conducting sham consultations but we all know it has gone on for years. Sometimes the proof is hard to come by with the abuse of FOI Laws.

The approach they take is to just give you the run around, wear you down, hoping eventually you will just give up and walk away.

They have the resources to do it.

[Dallas Beaufort]

4.

As a private enterprise housing applicant who is still fighting to deliver a mix of housing types encompassed within all policy documents, local, state and federal arenas to produce a result, the need now for those who garner power and pretend to deliver product via state regulation and Urban Land Authorities through their sustainable outcomes is at its greatest, as the, "them and us" provisions only feed the NIMBY and please the divisive and corrupt professionals starting with the public service and academia and thereby playing into the hands of corruption in general.

[Carl]

5.

Google the concept of Debt for Equity Swaps, Debt for Nature Swaps. You want to make sense of the 'socialist confiscation'?
This is your chance to find out why the property rights get in the way of someone's bigger claim over public and private property. A government heavily indebted needing to raise revenues to qualify for its structural adjustment loans.

[barrone]

6.

One only has to look back at the years of oppression in Russia to see where government ownership of everything leads to.
Seems there is a growing rift between government in Australia , and the Australian people .
Doesn't our constitution say that governments are there to work "for" the benefit of the people.
Seems the people have been forgotten !!!

[Dallas Beaufort]

7.

Well Janet, you must ask the question, what do the liberals stand for if they continue to go along with green labor polices which flog the living daylights out of those who do not want to become rentseeker's or politically corrupt.

[Alex Davidson]

8.

Janet, thanks for your supportive comments. Yes, I and many others are only too well aware of the submissions merry-go-round. We have concluded that bureaucrats see it merely as a way to keep us occupied while they go about the business of ensuring that their plans satisfy the merest whims of their government masters.

However I believe there will eventually be a day of reckoning - perhaps through the introduction of the sort of legislation you refer to - and when it comes, the trail of discarded submissions will become very important evidence documenting the shocking way we have been treated, and help to ensure we finally receive justice.

[vivienne]

9.

Thank you Pip for your comment, information and links. Would you mind if I copied that to a private forum, mainly of farmers?

[vivienne]

10.

Agree the Howard Liberl Government were in for 12/13 years and they never even told the public about the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21 let alone remove it, Traitors all of them! baring a few individuals.

[Pip]

11.

Vivienne,

No problem but my links really approach the other posters as though they know little about Agenda 21 and the link was not a good one, I found when I looked at it more closely.

The poster on the other thread about property rights put up a video from California that is an address by a Democrat AGAINST the sustainability Agenda who knows the Laws surrounding Agenda 21 inside out and can really politicize a rural group.

I found in writing to politicians, they won't admit to knowing about Agenda 21, all except Rob Oakshott, who supports it to the hilt and defended it to me. The others have a tin ear on it. I agree with you entirely on the Liberals, who knows where they stand? Who knows if they would have the courage to pull out of the UN now and go it alone on environmental matters now that they know what the UN is standing for? Now that they even know that they have the glimmerings of a constitiuency that has doubts about it?

The problem is so many long years of re-education of the youth of Australia from 1972 onwards. That is the problem.

[Janet H. Thompson]

12.

All good comments. Thanks, everyone.

Btw, dare I say it...I'm distantly curious as to why the normal MH trolls have not ventured in here? How pleasant to have a real conversation without being distracted. I really appreciate honest debate, and certainly don't mind being taken to task on my thought processes so long as it helps all of us to arrive at better policy positions.

Cheers,
Janet