NSW Planning Review Green Paper too green

Alex Davidson says government needs to do more.

Last year I wrote questioning whether the current review of the NSW planning legislation would recognise the importance of protecting property rights. In response to submissions, the government produced a Green Paper – somewhat aptly-named, as one of its proposals is to add a statutory right for environmental groups to be included in the planning process. But no mention of providing similar rights for owners – in fact the only reference to property rights is in Chapter 15 of Review Paper Volume 2 – Other Issues, under a heading “Matters outside the scope of our review”, where the authors make their position quite clear:

“Finally, we should observe that there have been a limited number of suggestions relating to the fundamental basis of the planning system. Specifically, that it should permit the unregulated and unlimited right of a property owner to undertake any development. We reject this fundamentalist property rights view because it is antisocial and contrary to the overarching objective of the Sustainable Planning Act.”

This supercilious dismissal of those seeking greater respect for property rights is very revealing, as it concisely wraps up many of the tactics used to maintain the supremacy of the state. Let’s go through the list:

1. Turning the process into a popularity contest, rather than one based on reason and principle:

“...a limited number of submissions...”. The number of submissions is irrelevant. Even if only one person points out that the Act provides the government with unlimited power to disregard property rights, and therefore should incorporate protections to guard against potential abuses of that power, it is a legitimate point that must be properly addressed if we are to remain living in freedom and prosperity.

2. Straw-man argument to draw attention away from what is really happening:

I read many of the submissions, and none of them could be fairly characterised as seeking “the unregulated and unlimited right of a property owner to undertake any development”. All those addressing the issue were seeking greater respect for property rights – the principle that ownership limits and regulates who has, and who does not have, the right to control an economic resource, rather than statutory law created by the government of the day.

No-one is seeking the right to carry out any development regardless of whether it impacts upon someone else’s property – in fact, it is that concern driving the call to ‘first, protect property rights’, given that the current Act allows the government to violate property rights in so many ways. It is the government that is seeking unregulated and unlimited rights, not those calling for the Act to respect property rights.

3. Ad hominem attack:

“We reject this fundamentalist property rights view because it is anti-social...” Unless you believe in communism, there is nothing anti-social about respecting property rights, and the use of ‘fundamentalist’ instead of ‘principled’ is in keeping with the way some of us were treated when we raised the issue at their public forums.

4. Determining conclusions first, and then writing reports to fit:

“...contrary to the overarching objective of the Sustainable Planning Act.”  Isn’t ‘the overarching objective’ one of the issues under review? Clearly the authors must have decided that ‘sustainable planning’ – whatever that means – was going to be the overarching objective, and then dismissed arguments against it without offering sound reasons.

Unfortunately this review is turning out to be yet another attempt to create a veneer of legitimacy around central planning, which by its very nature violates one of the most important principles underpinning our freedom, security, and prosperity – a principle that has evolved over many hundreds of years to successfully overcome ‘might is right’ and the law of the jungle: respect for property rights.

By exempting itself from many provisions in the current Act, the government has admitted that it has overstepped the mark; now they need to take that admission one step further, and remove similar restrictions where they apply to private property. Instead of an Act that attempts to prescribe the future, we would be better served by an Act that places the government in its rightful position, where planning is limited to responding to the patterns of development that occur when property rights and freedom are respected.

It is not too late to make a submission to the Green Paper, again pointing out the importance of protecting property rights. Maybe if enough of us do so, they will listen. Submissions close on 14 September.

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

Comments

[Janet H. Thompson]

1.

Alex, you have sufficiently blasted the paragraph to my liking. But I'm one of those few, fundamentalist, anti-social contrarians.

The centralised planning trend is the most alarming symptom I could point to that all ain't well in paradise.

Thanks for continuing to fight for the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.

Cheers,
Janet

[Dale Stiller]

2.

Incredible! A revelation to the activist approach & promotion of a philosophy rather than undertaking their role as a servant of the public in an unbiased manner.

[Carol Petith]

3.

Great thinking Alex. We have to take back our freedom. Bureaucrats have manipulated the power given to them by the electors and seek to take this country back to the dark ages.We are being made slaves of the bureaucracy.
Without private property rights having paramount consideration the private wealth of individuals will be transferred away from us all, rendering us dependent on some community scheme set up by those who propose to sell us all out.