Menzies House

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:

A Free Lunch For All

Alex Davidson notes Gillard's dangerous attack on private property rights:

"And here's the rub. You don't own the minerals. I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource. A resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people. They own it and they deserve their share."

- Gillard addressing the Minerals Council of Australia's annual dinner.

This will have to go down as one of the most inflammatory, dangerous proclamations ever made by an Australian prime minister. It is a direct attack on the very heart and soul of peaceful society – respect for property rights – and little different to the rhetoric we used to hear coming from the communist leaders of Russia, China, and Cambodia.

It's obvious that the minerals in the ground don't belong to 'all Australians' at all, as Julia and her communist comrades continually assert. Most are in fact un-owned, and the rest are in fact owned by the companies and individuals who became the first owner by exercising ownership rights over them, or who have subsequently purchased them. In just society, ownership does not arise through decree.

In order to defend their strident assertions, Gillard and her supporters must answer some basic questions about how this presumptive ownership came about. Was it through contract and consent, or by declaration? Was it through being the first to exercise ownership rights over resources that were previously un-owned, or taking no action at all? And precisely when does one qualify for joint ownership of this resource - at birth; on becoming a citizen, an adult, or a taxpayer? Surely too, if this notion of ownership was in fact true ownership, shouldn’t we be able to trade our share in the loot when we decide to leave Australia for greener pastures? And what about new immigrants – shouldn’t they be required to pony up for their share in it?

What Gillard is really talking about here is communism – society based not on individuals and private ownership, but on the collective and public ownership of everything, where all decisions about the use of economic resources are made by a powerful, privileged elite who call themselves the government. While the free lunch brigade may have no problems with this, in the end we all suffer, because communism stands for the abolition of property rights, and with it, the abolition of capitalism – the very pillars of prosperity, freedom, and peaceful society.

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

Report highlights dramatic benefits of free market

Alex Davidson writes in:

Today’s SMH carries an article trumpeting how well off we really all are under socialism. Yes, the cost of some necessities has risen, but hey, computers and tech goods – you know, the few remaining goods produced without government assistance or intervention – have fallen dramatically in price, while all those things that are either heavily regulated or produced by government itself have risen substantially. Think electricity, water, insurance, motor vehicle charges, land prices, legal fees, rates, taxes, levies, etc.

Now you would think that a fair-minded report would at least acknowledge this dramatic contrast, but no, the authors and the SMH journalist seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the failings of big government. Instead they recommend the Cuban solution – lower our aspirations!  They seem completely oblivious to the potential benefits of allowing the unhampered free market to operate over a wider sphere than just computers and large-screen TVs.

It gets worse. Without batting an eyelid, the report presents figures showing that almost half households’ main source of income for basic necessities comes from government benefits! Surely we have to ask: At what point do we cross the line from living in freedom; to living under state socialism or even communism? Only when all households main source of income for basic necessities comes from the government?

Recently the ‘moderate’ demagogues have been ramping up their rhetoric in support of the status quo, labelling anyone who calls for smaller government as extremist. But it is they who are the true extremists. It is they who advocate setting aside ‘thou shalt not steal’ as long as the ‘reason’ tugs strongly enough at our heartstrings; they who force the rest of us to give up personal freedom and responsibility to achieve their egalitarian, communistic vision for our futures; they who support the highest level of government intervention, taxation, and regulation in the entire history of Australia.

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