"[T]he replacement of the RMA, it looks like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians to protect property rights.
"There is clearly potential for improvement, but I fear that National Policy Statements, once the other lot get into power, could make it all much worse, by having a nationwide de-growth approach to put development into sclerosis. Chris Bishop and Simon Court talk a lot about private property rights, but it's unclear quite how important they are [here'.
"Certainly on the face of it, this isn't a reform that puts private property rights first. It could have, but the idea that MfE (which didn't exist before 1986) would ever do that or that an expert group dominated by planning lawyers would propose that, is a stretch.
"More simply there does not need to be any kind of 'resource management' law. There should be property law protecting people from infringements of property, and there are commons (that aren't going anywhere soon) that need protection from tort and nuisance from private property."
Friday, 12 December 2025
RMA replacements "look like an improvement (which wouldn't be difficult), but it still relies excessively on trusting politicians"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Fred, and hundreds of other landowners, exercise their property rights by importing sheep and cattle which they farm on their land. Nurkle, a small landowner, exercises his property rights by importing rabbits to farm on his land. Nurkle goes broke and the rabbits escape, to cause massive damage to Fred's land. Please explain how a property-rights framework allows for compensation to Fred and the other landowners.
The RMA was poorly conceived and suffers from capture by various vested interests, but it prevents Nurkle from importing rabbits unless he can offer adequate containment to protect the wider environment. This offers some prevention against a problem that a straight property-rights framework seems to simply wish away.
The Rule in Rylands V Fletcher establishes the clear common law principle that a person who brings something onto his land, which is likely to cause harm if it escapes, is liable for any damage.
Every libertarian should agree with that.
Wat's more, the rule is known in advance (it's still taught in most 1st year law, property, planning and even architecture papers), and it tells Nurkle in advance as clearly as any statute law what he risks with his rabbits. (Note that the RMA wouldn't have required a Resource Consent to stock your farm.)
Damage after a bankruptcy would depend now largely on statute law, but depending on the extent wouldn't necessarily absolve Nurkle of responsibility, and would likely see new owners of the property and/or business bear some part of the liability.
I understand the Rylands v Fletcher principle, and there is no problem with entering a judgement against Nurkle for his behaviour. The problem is that he has no money, so any post facto compensation regime is entirely imaginary. Nobody will buy his bankrupt business, and nobody will buy the property if that would entail liability for his past actions.
Government regulation has lots of problems, and by definition it creates some restriction on our liberties. Very often the benefits of regulation are not remotely comparable to the costs (including the costs of empowering jobsworths to boss us around), and over-zealous regulators need to be shown the door. But the extreme libertarian position that property rights should trump everything else seems to me to assume away too many real-life problem cases.
That doesn't stop me reading your blog, which makes me think harder about where the line between individual and community rights ought to be drawn. Thanks for your efforts!
Post a Comment