Comments on: Canberrans’ property rights upheld http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2009/02/14/canberrans-property-rights-upheld/ Journalism and other writing Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:37:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jon Altman http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2009/02/14/canberrans-property-rights-upheld/comment-page-1/#comment-147 Jon Altman Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:45:04 +0000 http://www.crispinhull.com.au/?p=9254#comment-147 Professor Jon Altman Crispin Hull's insightful opinion piece (''High Court ruling goes some of the way for equal rights in the ACT'', February 14, Forum 15) highlights the irony that, on the back of Aboriginal traditional owners in Maningrida opposing the compulsory leasing of their land, all Territorians, indigenous and non-indigenous, in the NT and the ACT are now eligible for just terms compensation under section 51((i) of the constitution. We are all equal Australian citizens now, at least in this regard. The key point that Justice Michael Kirby was highlighting, with which I concur, is that it is only remote-living and relatively powerless Aboriginal people who would have their freehold title compulsorily acquired for a state or territory project touted for their improvement. It is unimaginable that seizure of property in this way would be considered for other disadvantaged Australians. Professor Jon Altman, Forrest Professor Jon Altman

Crispin Hull’s insightful opinion piece (”High Court ruling goes some of the way for equal rights in the ACT”, February 14, Forum 15) highlights the irony that, on the back of Aboriginal traditional owners in Maningrida opposing the compulsory leasing of their land, all Territorians, indigenous and non-indigenous, in the NT and the ACT are now eligible for just terms compensation under section 51((i) of the constitution.

We are all equal Australian citizens now, at least in this regard.

The key point that Justice Michael Kirby was highlighting, with which I concur, is that it is only remote-living and relatively powerless Aboriginal people who would have their freehold title compulsorily acquired for a state or territory project touted for their improvement. It is unimaginable that seizure of property in this way would be considered for other disadvantaged Australians.

Professor Jon Altman, Forrest

]]> By: Richard Prideaux http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2009/02/14/canberrans-property-rights-upheld/comment-page-1/#comment-144 Richard Prideaux Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:47:53 +0000 http://www.crispinhull.com.au/?p=9254#comment-144 My brother in Canberra has brought you my attention. Whilst you expand on the rights of the Territories, it has always been leasehold property in A.C.T. so there has been no problem about property. Only the need to be prudent regarding the Government of the day. Freedom of speech is in danger for all Australian when the Rudd Government introduces legislation and gillotines debate. The Lower House should always have the Right to debate legislation regardless of the balance of power. When the Senate passes legislation with a majority cohersed by individuals special needs [Murray Darling], what independence do we have? Where is democracy to-day? Richard Prideaux My brother in Canberra has brought you my attention.
Whilst you expand on the rights of the Territories, it has always been leasehold property in A.C.T. so there has been no problem about property. Only the need to be prudent regarding the Government of the day.
Freedom of speech is in danger for all Australian when the Rudd Government introduces legislation and gillotines debate. The Lower House should always have the Right to debate legislation regardless of the balance of power. When the Senate passes legislation with a majority cohersed by individuals special needs [Murray Darling], what independence do we have?
Where is democracy to-day?
Richard Prideaux

]]>