Much of the property rights debate has stemmed from a view that the relevant legislation and regulation is fundamentally flawed.
Much of the property rights debate has stemmed from a view that the relevant legislation and regulation is fundamentally flawed.
This mainly relates to environmental issues, with proponents arguing a divorce of policy and science results in an unjust outcome for landowners.
Speaking last week at a Mannkal foundation lunch, environmental scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy said there was an inherent conflict between belief and reality in the environmental movement.
“The question is whether green groups are running on the basis of science of belief, and there are several blatant inconsistencies that show it is not always science,” Dr Marohasy said.
“You can’t progress the property rights issue without addressing the environmental one. If environmental harm is being caused, property rights are not of concern, but in a lot of these cases no harm is being caused and people are being adversely impacted.
“The biggest problem caused by property rights is the uncertainty created, which impacts adversely on investment.”
The environmental movement had its roots in the 1960s protest movement, which aimed to close down companies and lock away land. This was on the right side of history, but the wrong side of the present, she said.
“There is no doubt that real environmental harm is occurring, but we need to address the environmental issues which are real and those which are not,” Dr Marohasy said.
“Crying wolf about environmental problems just makes it harder to sort out which are the real problems.”
Dr Marohasy claims to have proved incorrect several arguments by green groups in relation to the Murray Darling Basin and the Great Barrier Reef by examining scientific evidence, which proved contrary to claims being made.
“Making public policy based on false claims is analogous to walking around with your eyes closed, and we need to rethink what it means to be environmentalists,” she told those at the luncheon.
The Institute of Public Affairs executive director Dr Mike Nahan said Western Australia was particularly sensitive to the erosion of property rights as a resource-based economy.
“Licences to use land are granted frequently be it for mining, fishing or so on,” he said.
“These people have a limited interest in the land, but once you start interfering with the agricultural sector, people who have a real lasting interest in the land, then you will get problems.
“Farmers can manage land in a holistic manner and are a powerful community when their stake in land is being encroached.”
Dr Nahan said undertaking commercial activity on an environmental resource was a difficult balance to strike, but suggested environmentalists had lost their way in terms of not only economic development, but also the environment.
