NORTH Wanneroo growers, if they have not already done so, have less than three days to make a submission to the Public Administration Committee, which is holding an inquiry into private property rights.
The Upper House committee will conduct an inquiry into private property rights following Agricultural MLC Rick Mazza of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party’s successful motion on the subject in the Legislative Council.
One thing Mr Mazza’s motion asked for was that the property rights of government-issued licenses and authorities including commercial fishing were rocognised.
The Parliamentary Inquiry into Private Property Rights was mentioned at a City of Wanneroo briefing session on Tuesday, July 23.
An officer’s report said the inquiry’s terms of reference included inquiring into the property rights associated with government-issued licences and the matter of compensation being paid where the value of these property rights was diminished by some government action.
“The Inquiry may have implications for groundwater licenses,’’ the report said.
“In Western Australia, when groundwater licenses are reduced, no compensation is paid.
“However, in parts of the eastern states (including the Murray-Darling Basin), when water allocations to growers are reduced, the reduction amount is purchased from the grower.
The report said North Wanneroo growers and the North Wanneroo Residents Association were now advocating for a similar compensation approach in this state.
“The North Wanneroo Taskforce recommended that payments to growers be considered where licenses are reduced, even though there is currently no legal obligation to do this,’’ the report said.
“The Inquiry may provide an opportunity to have the current system changed, so that there is a legal obligation for compensation to be paid when the value of groundwater licenses is reduced.”
Hansard shows in reference to Mr Mazza’s call for the property rights of government-issued licences and authorities including commercial fishing to be recognised, Environment Minister Stephen Dawson said licences issued by the government were not legal interests in land and did not grant ownership rights in land.
“Fishing licences issued under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 are statutory rights to take fish,’’ he said.
“Such fishing licences are not property rights.
“Water licences issued under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 grant the right to take water for a particular use, but do not give ownership of water to licensees.
“Licences are not real property rights and they are not, and should not be, recognised under our land title system.’’
Mr Mazza raised a number of issues in his June 12 motion, including the need for registration on the certificate of title of encumbrances such as environmentally sensitive areas (ESA), bushfire prone areas and implied easements for Western Power that currently sit behind the certificate of title.
In full Mr Mazza’s motion asked that the House: —
- recognises the fundamental proprietary right of private property ownership that underpins the social and economic security of the community;
- recognises the threat to the probity of the Torrens title system, which guarantees disclosure, and re-establishes the necessity for registration of all encumbrances that affect land including environmentally sensitive areas, bushfire-prone areas and implied easements for Western Power that currently sit behind the certificate of title;
- recognises the property rights of government-issued licenses and authorities including commercial fishing;
- asserts that fair and reasonable compensation must be paid to the owner of private property if the value of the property is diminished by a government encumbrance or resumption in order to derive a public benefit; and
- directs the Standing Committee on Public Administration to conduct an inquiry into the matters described above – with them as its terms of reference – and to report to the House within nine months of the date of the referral.
Environment spokesman Dr Steve Thomas said a person was effectively granted almost a leasehold title over the land that they, in theory, held as freehold.
“This means it is free from encumbrances from somebody else; however, it is not necessarily that person’s land to do entirely what they want with,’’ he said.
“This is an argument that people get into all the time: they do not own the land to the point at which anything they do on that land is free from interference from anybody else.’’
