My argument on the highway issue was not about it being unsightly but about the noise and pollution. A couple of organic farmers were in fact worried about maintaining the certification of their enterprises with regard to the pollution. Incidentally My property is not affected by it, so I am not arguing from self interest.

The exact value of “just compensation” for land acquired by force may be debatable and the subject of litigation. However the principle is quite clear. It is the value that the property would likely fetch in a willing sale in the prevaling market conditions. Ideally I’d like to insist that the government must pay twice what is just in order to dissuade them from casual acquisitions. However such a requirement would encourage a different sort of corruption and would itself shift markets substantially.

Both State and Federal governments are free to pass regulations that damage the value of property without paying any compensation at all. I was recently involved in a focus group in relation to a proposed highway bypass going through our area.

One of the questions asked of Warren Truss was, “why is compensation not paid to people who have the value of their property downgraded by the actions of government?” His reply was that if that was done the government would have the right to charge those whose property value was improved by say the moving of the current highway away from their area. (Warren has never been accused of being an intellectual).

This is of course totally fallacious as privately damaging another persons property results in a law suit, whereas there is no way that a private individual can charge a neighbour for an incidental increase in value to his property caused by work done on his own property.

Basically he was arguing that it was fair to pay the value of the properties being resumed and moving costs.

I asked him if I was driving a semi load of toxic waste along the highway and rolled it on his property, making it uninhabitable would he tell his lawyers to settle for that. He asked for another question.

I know a guy who has recently lost his business due to an underpass being built. He was not happy with his treatment and put a big sign out the front of his business saying “Not happy Rann” (SA premier is Mike Rann). But there’s nothing he can do about it.

I still like the movie “The Castle” anyway.

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/Democracy.html

Private Property Rights:

“More than any other political party in Australia, the LDP supports private property rights.

Under the Constitution the federal government may compulsorily acquire private property, but only on just terms. State and Territory governments are not bound by the Constitution and can, in certain circumstances, compulsorily acquire property without paying any compensation.

Both State and Federal governments are free to pass regulations that damage the value of property without paying any compensation at all.

This needs to change. All levels of governments should be responsible for the consequences of any compulsory acquisitions as well as regulations that impact on the value of private property. The payment of compensation on just terms should apply in every case that government legislation impacts on property value.

This change would mean that the government only introduced regulations that provided more benefit to society than the costs they imposed. This would introduce another important discipline on government, promoting good policy and protecting private property rights.

The LDP proposes that these changes be made permanent through constitutional amendments.”

It’s worth noting that this sort of legislation is only conceivable under State law. The Federal Constitution ensures just compensation.