The Death of Rural Freehold Rights

By Hoggett, Jim | Review - Institute of Public Affairs, December 2002 | Go to article overview

The Death of Rural Freehold Rights


Hoggett, Jim, Review - Institute of Public Affairs


FARMER Jim is thinking of felling one of the 20,000 trees on his property for fenceposts. He has used up his 30 tree (0.15 per cent) exemption. He looks at one of the 19,970 remaining trees. He has to consider: what slope it is on; whether it is a rare species; whether it has any hollows or is on the way to having hollows; what native animals or birds are feeding off it or are likely to do so; what effect it has on the forest canopy; whether it is near a stream; whether it is of aboriginal significance; etc., etc. Then he will be in a position to make a lengthy submission to government seeking permission to fell. Welcome to the world of tree-by-- tree approvals.

Over many years, governments have taken actions that have diluted the rights to freehold title. They have done so for a variety of reasons, including to provide for essential public services, to control harmful activities and, more recently, to prevent ugly development. This has resulted in extremely interventionist regimes. Such regimes are necessary, particularly in crowded urban areas. But they are not costless.

Nevertheless, the planning regimes have generally not destroyed the economic value of a whole class of property and deprived landholders of the incentive to care for it.

State Governments are in the process of doing just this. They are establishing native vegetation legislation that will quarantine large areas of Australia, effectively eliminating freehold tenure in those areas. In opting for coercion rather than cooperation, for preservation rather than management, they will also ensure that their environmental objectives will not be attained.

THE LEGISLATION

At the national level, the legislation is intended to prevent widespread additional clearing of private native forest and woodland. At the local level, this will be done by depriving landholders of historical legal rights and existing economic value. The rights are the counterweight for the responsibility of care. The new legislation does not provide for the expropriator (the government) to take up the responsibility of care. Indeed, it seeks to impose additional responsibilities on the landholder as it removes the property rights.

The method of expropriation is through the familiar requirement for official permission that will be hard to obtain and seldom granted. Permits will generally be required from government before native vegetation can be disturbed. Native vegetation is widely, if vaguely, defined but can be taken to encompass most native forest and woodland. The legislation is duplicated, extended and reinforced in many respects by existing and new rules covering water and native fauna. The legislation will be administered through regional plans containing detailed regulation.

Some exemption has been granted so that landholders can remove or take a number of trees per annum. The exemptions bear no relation to existing rights. In one NSW regional plan, it is 30 trees per property. On a property with 100 hectares of trees (not uncommon) there could be up to 40,000 trees. The exemption is, therefore, nominal and negligible. It cannot be described as maintenance of landholders' rights nor does it provide the basis for sensible forest management.

The avenues for landholders to apply for permission to undertake native forest activities will be hedged with the usual interminable processes of analysis, submission, impact statement, comment, etc. Only big businesses will have the time, expertise or money to take on the crushing weight of the State bureaucracies and the inevitable third-party intervention that the centralizing of decisions fosters and favours. Farmers already have a day job. Expensive and complex submissions to government are far more onerous for them than for full-time bureaucracies or (government-financed) Green organizations.

In this case, regulation of rights is effectively elimination of rights.

In effect, the policy locks up the private forest at no immediate cost to the government and eliminates the freehold property right. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Death of Rural Freehold Rights
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.