4 ms·

People have a legal right to both personal and private property under Australian law. I’m not sure where you got that idea.

by kdtsh 8y ago

ausd123 8y ago
I'm interested to know what the farmers whose properties get taken by mining companies have to say about that. Though genuinely unsure and curious as to whether that's a separate legal (or perhaps media reporting) issue.
- spydum 8y ago
  To be fair this isn’t solved via constitutional rights in the US either - look up eminent domain law.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Better yet, look up "mineral rights". It actually comes up a lot in private house sales.
- kdtsh 8y ago
  This happens in a lot of countries and is a problem. That doesn’t mean that rights to private/personal property aren’t guaranteed by law in Australia, just that the law is skirted by monied interests. The farmers you talk about would likely be able to fight this in court if they had means - but such is the nature of late capitalism, money buys you political power and legal clout.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Well two things here. The first is that a lot of agricultural land is leasehold, not freehold. The second is that below a certain depth, the Crown owns what's underground and has the right to go through your property to get to its property, whether directly or by leasing it to a mining company.
- kirrent 8y ago
  It's like you haven't even seen The Castle, where this very constitutional issue is discussed. Acquisition of property must be on just terms with suitable compensation. Similar to the US 5th amendment.
  - ausd123 8y ago
    While I agree with you in theory, it's worth remembering the only reason The Castle has a happy ending is because someone who was already wealthy offered to help out people (for free) who weren't.
zaphirplane 8y ago
The comment was referring to privacy presumably search and enter On an aside it appears Australia has done away with the self incrimination protection laws Is that a right in most democratic countries?
- kdtsh 8y ago
  I’m sure an argument can be made that privacy extends from property, but that argument would have to be fleshed our and defended - I’m not sure I can accept at face value a point about there not being a right to property in Australia (essentially incorrect) because privacy is being eroded (which in any case sounds like faulty reasoning). I’m fairly certain it’s still the case that you can’t be compelled to incriminate yourself in a court. Of course you have clearly unjust laws like those concerning the Building/Construction Commission in which an ad hoc court can compel you to give evidence against yourself, but this is an abberation which has not had the opportunity to be challenged in the High Court AFAIK, and it will likely be abolished when Labor comes back into power.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in a royal commission. This is one of the reasons royal commissions are popular - that and they employ an army of lawyers and QCs.
    - kdtsh 8y ago
      I suppose what I meant to say was ‘in a criminal case’. You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in non-criminal cases in the US too, the fifth amendment provides for protection only in criminal cases. I’m not sure if you can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in criminal cases in Australia, but in any case, royal commissions are not criminal cases, they’re commissions with quasi-judicial Powers (mainly because they have the power to compel people to do produce evidence, etc.)
      - danieltillett 8y ago

People have a legal right to both personal and private property under Australian law. I’m not sure where you got that idea.

by kdtsh 8y ago

People have a legal right to both personal and private property under Australian law. I’m not sure where you got that idea.

ausd123 8y ago

I'm interested to know what the farmers whose properties get taken by mining companies have to say about that. Though genuinely unsure and curious as to whether that's a separate legal (or perhaps media reporting) issue.

spydum 8y ago
To be fair this isn’t solved via constitutional rights in the US either - look up eminent domain law.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Better yet, look up "mineral rights". It actually comes up a lot in private house sales.
kdtsh 8y ago
This happens in a lot of countries and is a problem. That doesn’t mean that rights to private/personal property aren’t guaranteed by law in Australia, just that the law is skirted by monied interests. The farmers you talk about would likely be able to fight this in court if they had means - but such is the nature of late capitalism, money buys you political power and legal clout.
jacques_chester 8y ago
Well two things here. The first is that a lot of agricultural land is leasehold, not freehold. The second is that below a certain depth, the Crown owns what's underground and has the right to go through your property to get to its property, whether directly or by leasing it to a mining company.
kirrent 8y ago
It's like you haven't even seen The Castle, where this very constitutional issue is discussed. Acquisition of property must be on just terms with suitable compensation. Similar to the US 5th amendment.
- ausd123 8y ago
  While I agree with you in theory, it's worth remembering the only reason The Castle has a happy ending is because someone who was already wealthy offered to help out people (for free) who weren't.

zaphirplane 8y ago

The comment was referring to privacy presumably search and enter On an aside it appears Australia has done away with the self incrimination protection laws Is that a right in most democratic countries?

kdtsh 8y ago
I’m sure an argument can be made that privacy extends from property, but that argument would have to be fleshed our and defended - I’m not sure I can accept at face value a point about there not being a right to property in Australia (essentially incorrect) because privacy is being eroded (which in any case sounds like faulty reasoning). I’m fairly certain it’s still the case that you can’t be compelled to incriminate yourself in a court. Of course you have clearly unjust laws like those concerning the Building/Construction Commission in which an ad hoc court can compel you to give evidence against yourself, but this is an abberation which has not had the opportunity to be challenged in the High Court AFAIK, and it will likely be abolished when Labor comes back into power.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in a royal commission. This is one of the reasons royal commissions are popular - that and they employ an army of lawyers and QCs.
  - kdtsh 8y ago
    I suppose what I meant to say was ‘in a criminal case’. You can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in non-criminal cases in the US too, the fifth amendment provides for protection only in criminal cases. I’m not sure if you can be compelled to give evidence against yourself in criminal cases in Australia, but in any case, royal commissions are not criminal cases, they’re commissions with quasi-judicial Powers (mainly because they have the power to compel people to do produce evidence, etc.)
    - danieltillett 8y ago