Thursday, January 06, 2005
Law and liberty both at risk
Vegetation management in Queensland – a Case of Constitutional Vandalism
Suri Ratnapala, Professor of Law and Director, Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law, T C Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland
Australia is called the Lucky Country but luck has played only a small part in the country’s success. The conversion of resources into wealth requires capital, technology, enterprise and hard work. People do not invest in wealth creating activity when the risks are too high and the returns too low. Risks increase when the law is unpredictable and property rights are insecure. The success of Australia’s primary industry sector owes much to the relative stability of property rights and contractual certainty secured by what the great Scottish philosopher David Hume called the ‘three fundamental laws concerning the stability of possessions, translation by consent and the performance of promises’ These laws are maintained by the strength of the constitution and the eternal vigilance of the people. Environmental regulation driven by Green politics threatens the rule of law and property rights. The flawed processes by which environmental policies are determined and enforced not only subvert constitutional principles but also admit bad science.
This essay examines the nature of the Green threat to the rule of law and hence property rights. It is impossible to survey within a brief note the complex and ever growing environmental regulatory regime in Australia. Hence I will focus my attention on one piece of legislation that typifies all that is wrong and dangerous about recent trends in environmental protection law in this country. The legislation I examine is Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA)
Suri Ratnapala, Professor of Law and Director, Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law, T C Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland
Australia is called the Lucky Country but luck has played only a small part in the country’s success. The conversion of resources into wealth requires capital, technology, enterprise and hard work. People do not invest in wealth creating activity when the risks are too high and the returns too low. Risks increase when the law is unpredictable and property rights are insecure. The success of Australia’s primary industry sector owes much to the relative stability of property rights and contractual certainty secured by what the great Scottish philosopher David Hume called the ‘three fundamental laws concerning the stability of possessions, translation by consent and the performance of promises’ These laws are maintained by the strength of the constitution and the eternal vigilance of the people. Environmental regulation driven by Green politics threatens the rule of law and property rights. The flawed processes by which environmental policies are determined and enforced not only subvert constitutional principles but also admit bad science.
This essay examines the nature of the Green threat to the rule of law and hence property rights. It is impossible to survey within a brief note the complex and ever growing environmental regulatory regime in Australia. Hence I will focus my attention on one piece of legislation that typifies all that is wrong and dangerous about recent trends in environmental protection law in this country. The legislation I examine is Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA)
