Increasingly governments are 'picking winners' and disregarding traditional property rights when it comes to enforcing changes in land use that too often suit a political agenda rather than a practical one.
There have been two events in the past week, which have crytallised this point, albeit on the back of numerous examples over the past decade, each seemingly more brazen than the last.
First on an agricultural front, Queensland's Labor Government has again singled out farm practices for regulation under the guise of environmental management.
The farm lobby and the State Government are arguing the scientific basis for the move, but the bottom line remains that agriculture is an easy target for Labor's bid to win over wavering green voters by claiming to save the Great Barrier Reef.
What is overlooked has been the improvement in farm practices in recent years in reducing sediment run-off.
While this form of regulation of property rights has become par for the course over recent decades, it is the singling out of agriculture that is the hypocrisy of the agenda. There has been no mention of including in the new regulations the booming number of coal mines in Central Queensland, which rely on the Fitzroy River Basin for their water.
Currently the water quality in the Fitzroy River, the mouth of which is at Rockhampton and flushes directly onto the Reef, is dubious to say the least.
The cause of this sudden increase in salt and mineral levels in the water goes back to January floods on the Central Highlands, when the pit of the Ensham coal mine was flooded. Water from the pit has since been pumped directly back into the river system, working its way downstream and now on to the reef.
In effect the State Government is pawning off rural land rights in order to court both the financially powerful mining sector, which delivers billions into the State's coffers in royalties, and the equally powerful green vote of the south-east corner of Queensland.
If that is not bad enough, there are more dangerous warning bells a ringing from Canberra's actions in taking on the Western Australian mining lobby.
Last week the High Court, with the support of the Federal Government, in effect took over a privately built and owned railway line of BHP Billiton in order to give access to this asset to BHP's business rival Fortescue Metals.
Institute of Public Affairs director Alan Moran wrote in The Australian Financial Review last week that "if these decisions on the Pilbara railways were to apply to assets in general, then many would be cheering them as sounding the death knell of the capitalist system.
"Owners' sole rights to use their property would be substituted by the state requiring that it be shared and setting the fee for such sharing."
These are not one-off aberrations - think native vegetation regulations, which in many states were an unpaid for acquisition of a land owners' right to use the resources (timber) which stood on their property.
The fear that I have is that these government over-rides of private property rights will only become more brazen, as the community at large unwittingly embraces the socialisation of their assets.
Or are such policies for the greater good? What do you think?
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff