Archive | Property rights RSS feed for this section

Let farmers do what they do best

By on May 2, 2013 in Personal liberties, Property rights, Rule of law

CountryGardens

The Colac Otway Shire council has faced local outrage over the proposed new laws that will place “draconian” restrictions on how farmers manage their land.  The council encompasses some of the great Western district farming areas of Colac, Cressy and Beeac, including the popular coastal destinations of Wye River and Apollo Bay.  The Shire has brought in the new laws to keep it in step with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries plans to remap the biodiversity and native vegetation maps across Victoria, leading some to warn that other councils may follow suit.

The Weekly Times notes that the proposed overlays on private property “can restrict ploughing of native grass, removal of fallen tree limbs for use as firewood, timber harvesting from purpose-planted native trees and even removal of rocks.”   What is perhaps the most galling about the proposed rules is that it in fact punishes farmers who have striven to be good conservationists by planting and caring for native species on their properties, and yet those who have stripped the land back will have no restrictions placed on them at all.  Local Beech Forest cattle breeder and business man, Ray Cooper, explains that farmers have been less considerate in their treatment of  the land “won’t end up having these overlays because they don’t have the native trees.”

Beeac farmer and former president of the Colac Shire, John Daffy, states that this is a prohibitive intrusion into private citizens’ lives.

What it means is they’ve got control of your property…Their fines are so prohibitive that you could be nearly forced off your property…

Concern has been so great that Daffy has formed a local action group to try and prevent the changes.  Yesterday’s deadline for the public outcry to the proposed changes illustrated that

Agriculture is the primary economic driver [for the Shire]. Why would you crucify your farmers?

Furthermore, it will affect the local economy, as farmers and businesses will be driven to trade in different areas as the new law will make it “very, very difficult for people to do business.”  The Institute of Public Affairs has written before on the impact that native vegetation and environmental laws have: please read them here and here.  The end result of making the good conservationist practices that Australian farmers are renowned for prohibitively expensive and overly regulated, will be to actively discourage the preservation of native species.  Perhaps more importantly though, it will decimate local farming communities, as people flee to make an easier, less micro-managed, career and businesses elsewhere.

Council sign ban an attack on free speech

By on April 30, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Property rights

Local councils are the latest level of government attempting to curtail Australian’s private property rights and the right to freedom of speech.

IPA research has uncovered that Knox Council requires people to apply for a permit to display advertising or promotional signs in a ‘public place’. However, according to their 2010 bylaws:

8.3 …Council may declare, by resolution, land that is privately owned but being used for public purpose as a public place.

In an outrageous example, Boronia resident Mike Culling was threatened by his local council with a $611 fine for putting up a protest sign on his own fence. Knox Council demanded Mr Culling obtain a permit to be able to protest on his own property.

According to Mr Cullling:

It was the first time I realised I couldn’t put a sign up on my own property – I thought that was part of democracy.

Council cannot be able to force Mr Culling to pay and apply for a permit to exercise his freedom of speech by protesting on his own property.

The IPA also highlighted the story of a proud Australian, Nicholas Zisti, who was fined $5000 for displaying Australia Day decorations as part of his cafe. The decorations, including the front facade of the cafe being converted to a giant Australian flag, were part of Mr Zisti’s private property and his freedom of speech to show his pride for Australia.

Every individual should be able to decorate, promote, protest or put advertising material on their own private property, without government interference. No level of government, including councils, should be able to dictate such freedom of speech restrictions for citizens on their private property.

“Unexplained wealth” laws reverse the burden of proof

By on April 16, 2013 in Property rights, Rule of law

The Queensland state parliament Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee has just given the green light to “unexplained wealth” laws that reverse the onus of proof and undermine the presumption of innocence. The laws are part of a broader response to organised crime but they represent an attack on fundamental legal rights:

In a research brief prepared for the government by the parliamentary library and research service, the laws are explained as meaning “in principle, prosecutors would not need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a person’s property/benefits were obtained via criminal activity. Instead, if a person has accumulated wealth that does not seem commensurate with his/her lifestyle and livelihood, that person would bear the onus of proving that the wealth was legitimately acquired”.

Last month I wrote about the push for these laws by the Commonwealth government. As I explained at the time:

It’s becoming common practice for the Gillard government to pass laws that reverse the onus of proof. The government’s dangerous draft anti-discrimination bill also includes a provision that reverses the burden of proof.

Now it appears the Gillard government is not alone.

UPDATE: The Queensland Law Society shares our view on this issue. Glen Cranny explains on ABC Radio here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/04/queensland-law-society-has-concerns-about-unexplained-wealth-legislation.html

Gillard’s anti-gang laws threaten property rights and liberty

By on March 8, 2013 in Personal liberties, Property rights, Rule of law

Jason Clare“Oh it will definitely work, the Police Commissioner has made the point, he said on the weekend, this is the way to fight crime.”

That was Jason Clare, federal minister for home affairs, in an ABC radio interview earlier this week. Clare has been spruiking the Gillard government’s proposal to implement national anti-gang laws. Prime minister Julia Gillard announced the proposal on Wednesday ($), while she was campaigning governing in western Sydney:

“National anti-gang and asset seizure laws will help ensure police have the powers they need and there are no safe havens,” Ms Gillard said.

The laws will give courts the power to declare that a body, such as a bikie gang, is a criminal organisation and then impose control orders on designated members.

The orders, which would take effect across the country and not just in one state, will prevent members from meeting with other club members, holding a liquor licence, visiting clubhouses or holding weapons or explosives licences.

Simply put, the proposal to introduce “unexplained wealth” laws cannot be tolerated in a liberal democracy. Such laws undermine property rights and reverse the burden of proof by forcing property owners to justify to the police how they came to own their property.

The suggested provisions relating to prevention of meetings also clearly undermine freedom of association. Chris Berg wrote about this issue when NSW passed consorting laws last year.

It’s concerning that ministers continually take heed of law enforcement agencies telling them they need new and greater powers. Blindly following their recommendations indicates a failure to recognise that bureaucrats – whether they’re in law enforcement or any other area of government – are always going to ask for more powers and more money. It’s the kind of ignorant approach to policy-making that gave us the privacy-crushing data retention proposal. Self-interest doesn’t suddenly disappear when someone takes a job with the government.

The government’s proposal also ignores basic facts. The laws have been introduced in part to tackle drive-by shootings in Sydney’s western suburbs. But it should be noted that crimes of this kinds aren’t always gang-related. As former NSW detective Tim Priest writes ($):

I fail to see just how this initiative is actually going to stop random drive-by shootings that are not connected to gangs. There is evidence in Sydney that some of the shootings are more about culture and how some in our community deal with personal offence, rather than being gang related.

Criminal law is properly a domain of the states and the states ought to continue dealing with these issues. They are better than the Commonwealth at identifying local problems and tailoring appropriate policy solutions. And we already have a host of laws at the state level that deal with the kinds of issues that the Commonwealth government is attempting to address. Duplication won’t solve anything.

We’ll have more on this as further details emerge.

Farmers fight back in Tasmania

By on March 4, 2013 in Property rights

Twelve concerned farmers from Southern Tasmania have banded together to start fighting back against the government’s attacks on their property rights. One of the group’s members, Lindsay Wright, was recently interviewed on ABC Rural:

Sally Dakis: And what are your concerns? And I guess that’s a very big question, but number one?

Lindsay Wright: Number one is probably that our property title rights have been eroded over the years – probably the last 20-30 years – to such an extent that everything we try and do now on our farms – we have to fill in forms, we have to get authority from someone in town who’s done a university degree that really has no idea how we run our farms and we are quite upset by all this. The fact that we are just farmers and we’ve run our farms for generations and we’ve run them well, and in the last 20 or 30 years, particularly the environmental movement has become so strong, and they’ve got the high moral ground, and we’ve decided that enough is enough and we want to get some of this ground back.

Wright is spot on. Successive governments have been chipping away at farmers’ property rights over a long period of time. Controlled burning and native vegetation policies are paternalistic and ignore the fact that the best conservationists will always be the landowners themselves.

The IPA has previously called for an end to native vegetation laws.

The non-human right to welfare

By on March 4, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Property rights

The Left has a strong track record of promoting non-human rights. In Australia, the most infamous example in recent years has been the right not to be offended – enshrined in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Other bizarre examples include the non-human right to housing, the non-human right to education, the non-human right to employment and even the non-human right to broadband.

The latest example is the non-human right to welfare. The United Nations has raised concerns with the federal government’s plans to change welfare laws because it will result in a cut in the payments to some single parent recipients:

The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and the working group on discrimination against women are warning the cuts could have a detrimental effect on the human rights of up to 100,000 Australians, and could be contrary to some of Australia’s international obligations.

These examples demonstrate that the Left simply ignores the basic characteristics of what constitutes a human right. You don’t have a right to someone else’s stuff – if your so-called right depends on taking property from another person, it’s not a human right. That’s why the right to freedom of speech is a human right, but the right to broadband is not.

Instead of a principled approach, based on the idea that rights are exclusive claims, the Left-wing human rights lobby just co-opts the language of human rights to defend the things it likes.

Gillard Government seizure of inactive bank accounts is an attack on property rights

By on February 28, 2013 in Media release, Property rights

“The Gillard government’s plan to take money from dormant bank accounts is a shameful grab for cash and a significant attack on property rights,” said Simon Breheny, director of the Legal Rights Project at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Unclaimed Money and Other Measures) Act 2012 amends the Banking Act 1959 to lower the threshold for “unclaimed moneys”, which are transferred from banks that hold the accounts to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Previously this was defined as any money in bank accounts that had been inactive for a period of seven years, but the new laws require inactivity for only three years.

“People should be able to leave money in bank accounts for as long as they wish without the fear that the government might come along and steal it from them. To do so is an arbitrary acquisition of property by the government,” said Mr Breheny.

“Parents saving for their children’s education, young people saving for a home and others putting money aside for retirement are all at risk of losing their savings as a result of these changes,” said Mr Breheny.

“The changes could have a number of unintended consequences. Such a regime provides a disincentive to saving money with a bank and may encourage people to hide their money under the mattress and away from the hands of government,” said Mr Breheny.

“The government is desperately attempting to shore up its financial position before the budget is handed down in May 2013,” said Mr Breheny.

“Tony Abbott and the Coalition must commit to repealing these changes if elected to government,” said Mr Breheny.

For media and comment: Simon Breheny Director, Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382

Freedom commissioners might fix the AHRC

By on February 22, 2013 in Freedom of speech, Property rights, Rule of law

I have written an article in The Australian today about the abject failure of the Australian Human Rights Commission to stand up for classical liberal democratic rights. I’ve argued that the only way to stop the commission from campaigning for more restrictions on our freedoms is to abolish it. But if it can’t be abolished it should have freedom commissioners appointed to promote freedom of speech, association and religion and the protection of property rights and the rule of law:

The Australian Human Rights Commission must correct its bias towards a left-wing human rights agenda by moving to appoint freedom commissioners.

The ideological mindset of the commission led opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis last week to ask the president of the commission, Gillian Triggs: “Why has it taken people like my friends at the Institute of Public Affairs to promote and defend freedom in Australia?”

At best, the commission pays lip-service to the idea that it needs to strike a balance between old liberal rights — such as freedom of speech, religion and association — and new progressive rights such as the right not to be offended.

But, funnily enough, we only hear about the need for balance when the commission is criticised for its failure to promote the first category of rights.

There is a simple way to overcome this problem — the appointment of freedom commissioners. Currently, there are five commissioners of discrimination and social justice. Balance could be achieved by appointing five freedom commissioners: one each for freedom of speech, association, religion, property rights and the rule of law.

Such a structure could help to achieve real balance within the commission and assist in reversing the curtailment of our most fundamental human rights.