Mineral Rights
Under Australian law all minerals in the ground belong to the state or federal governments. If you own land you do not own any petroleum or minerals buried within the land and the government can force you off your land (with compensation) in order to access the minerals buried below. Owning land in Australia merely means that you have a right to use the surface, not what is buried below.
Australia is not unique in this regard. In fact only one nation on Earth (the USA) aligns general land ownership with ownership of mineral rights. As a result the USA has half of all the worlds oil wells. Ownership of mineral rights is a primary motivator for exploration and extraction in the USA.
Aboriginal Land Rights are an exception to the rule. On aboriginal lands the mineral rights often belong to the aboriginal collective that owns the land.
It is an open question as to whether Australia is under performing in the minerals sector due to government ownership of mineral rights?
19 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Fleeced on State Elections 
Steve on State Elections 
Semi Regular Liberta… on State Elections 
Philip Lillingston on State Elections 
papachango on State Elections 
Shem Bennett on State Elections Fleeced on State Elections 
'Nuke' Gray on State Elections papachango on State Elections Fleeced on State Elections 
Semi Regular Liberta… on State Elections Fleeced on State Elections Fleeced on State Elections 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on State Elections Steve on State Elections
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
This format is terrible.
I was fiddling around with the themes on the site, but the one we’ve got now is probably best…or did you mean Terje’s post was badly formatted? I’ve fixed that.
What is/was the specific problem?
Nothing much, just some unnecessary/extra white space.
As far as I know aboriginal land rights do not change mineral rights. Is that referring to federal or state jurisdiction (both minerals and aboriginal land rights)?
Despite that, the question is valid. Australia is currently going through a mining boom which each state government is facilitating enthusiastically (in some cases with corporate welfare). Whether it would be any better if the land owner also owned the mineral rights is an interesting point. I rather think it might help. It would certainly overcome the problem caused by certain types of farmers (eg grape growers) opposing mining.
What the fuck is going on here? Why are my comments not appearing? Has someone fucked up?
David, take a chill pill – it’s the site spam filter that thinks you are a bot. Someone who knows more about wordpress than me might know what to do if the problem continues.
Unless I’m mistaken, Aborigines have the right to negotiate with mining companies under the Native Title Act. I don’t think they actually get ownership over the mineral resources, as Terje suggests. If they did, that would be awesome. But really I’m guessing the provision is just a vote winner put in there to force commercial interests to come to the communal bargaining table in the interests of preserving ‘culture’.
Some people argue forcing negotiation increased transaction costs and was bad for the economy. But Sinclair Davidson et al wrote a good paper arguing that it hasn’t [Sudden changes in property rights: the case of Australian native title, Journal of economic behavior & Organisation, Vol. 52 (2003) 427-442].
… it’s perhaps the wrong question to ask though. Someone should do a study asking what has been the cost of not integrating Aborigines?
Native Title does not give ownership of anything, including mineral rights It’s like a caveat. The land owners can be delayed or sometimes even blocked from using the land by the Native Title holders on the grounds that it will encroach on their rights. Mineral rights fall into that category too.
I agree that the cost of failure to integrate aborigines is worth examining, although it would be hard to put a value on the social costs. They would be enormous.
Aborigines do not own mineral rights at common law or under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth): Ward v Western Australia. What they do have is a ‘right to negotiate’ at each stage of the process – exploration, exploitation and ancillary activities (eg employment).
The extent of rights in real propety extend far enough abouve the ground for reasonable enjoyment without interference (planes flying over – no trespass, but crane jib hanging into your backyard – trespass). They extend far enough down to prevent tunnelling under the surface, but no more.
In a way state ownership of mineral rights operates like zoning laws that prohibit mining unless you pay a fee, as well as allowing the government to force you off your land as they do for new road construction. In an urban setting there is some sence in this.
However in a rural context I would prefer that mineral rights that are currently owned by the state should be passed over to the land owners. As this would be a gift the government might make it look fairer by tayloring the deal such that these rights were leased back to the government for 30 years at an annual peppercorn rate of rent to ensure that current owners did not enjoy any short term windfall. The market would then have 30 years to adjust property prices. As prices increased the cost to the government of compulsory acquisition (at the market rate) would/might rise.
It’s truly shocking how the Australian people actually allow such pathetic land rights. We should demand land rights from the heavens to the core.
That would imply that I own a different star system depending on the time of day. Unless your definition of “the heavens” is lower down.
You have the right to collect that interstellar energy as it falls on your land…I don’t like the yield of that however!
If ownership laws changed to include mineral deposits as I think they should, companies would have more incentive to clean up after themselves and create on-going investment and future projects. ie: people who rent a house don’t look after it as well as people who own a house. I’m sure you guys know this but how do you communicate this point to environmentalists who basically hate capitalism?
In addition, I think this issue relates well to the middle east oil situation. This was written by Lenord Peikoff on October 2, 2001: “Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West’s property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot”.
http://www.peikoff.com/essays/end.htm
I don’t necessarily support Peikoff’s call to war made in 2001 but I think the above comment is highly accurate.
Peikoff accurately identifies some of the root causes of the problems of the world at the moment in Middle Eastern aggression post WWII.
His solutions may be just but are not feasible and therefore fail Objectivism’s own test for going to war.
Since I am from the USA I am used to this kind of dual ownership of surface/subsurface rights. Unfortunately, here in the USA mineral rights can be sold by the land owner without selling the surface ownership. The seperation of mineral rights ownership and surface ownership rights can cause its own problems. Many times a buyer will purchase a property only to find he is, literally, sharing the ownership with a person or entity that owns the mineral rights. The mineral rights contract can give the m.r.owner the ability to cause damage to the surface owners property when extracting these minerals. The language used is very important in determining these rights between surface owners and mineral rights owners. MTB
What is the problem? This is an issue of contract law and conveyancing.
In Australia either a land titles search or a record going back 30 years would remedy any defect or qualification of title.
I own my land down to Eart’s core and above the land to infinity. My land, my law.
James, I think your claim is an intriguing idea, though not recognised by any government on Earth. And since the Earth rotates, the ‘above the land to infinity’ presumably includes any satellites passing through ‘your’ block of unreal estate? Why not just ‘up to the top of the atmosphere’?
That way, you’re also not laying claim to any alien planets and civilisations, who might disagree with your ‘claim’.