CONCEPT 1 – COMPENSATION AS A WAY TO REDUCE NUISANCE
(Hogan & Edwards, 2003) states the idea of compensation in Common Law is to protect the environment as it amplifies the need for organisations and individuals within a society to prevent nuisance. Furthermore, compensation concept has raised conflict between environmental concerns and restricts the property holder’s rights to fully utilize their resources. Nevertheless, the idea of compensation can also be seen as an ethical guideline for the society, of which if any laws were to be broken, for example harming the environment, appropriate punishments will be conducted. Therefore, the act of compensation may lead to a greater cause in the ...view middle of the document...
” (The State of Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2012)
In contrast to the usefulness of the concept, companies or organizations tend to exploit the idea of compensation. A real business example is Santos, a major Australian oil and gas exploration and production company compensating farmers in Queensland. According to (Bahnisch, 2012) Santos, the company compensated private landowners majorly farmers for AUD2500 per well, in order to conduct a search for coal seam gas. This action identifies the exploitation of compensation as a method to appease landowners rather than preventing nuisance.
Furthermore this evidently shows contradiction towards the idea of compensation, which sole purpose was to prevent or eliminate any form of nuisance caused towards the environment. Overall, this example may show flaws of compensation to reduce nuisance and to protect the environment however, it is arguable that the outcome for the search of coal seam gas in private lands can be of a greater cause. The means justify the ends.
Overall as an urban planner, the existence of compensation hinder planner to propose a master plan. This is because urban planner would need to construct an optimum master plan that appease both the government and the society due to the existence of private and public land ownership. Hence to avoid and reduce the risk of litigations and reimbursement, compensation is certainly a major factor of consideration during the proposition of master plan.
CONCEPT 2- PUBLIC SECTOR INITIATIVE TO SPREAD COMMON GOOD ARE NOT THE BEST SOLUTION
In the paper written by (Hogan & Edwards, 2003), identifies “Australia grafted on its own nation building traditions: based upon equality of opportunity.” In particular, giving the public sector the power to regulate development and uses resources for common good through planning scheme. However, the concept of planning scheme for public sector, to distribute common goods, may not be equally distributed or satisfies different groups in the society due to different wants and needs. Common good defined by (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, S, & Meyer, 1992) as good ”consists of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people”.
A good example of a planning scheme failing to satisfy different indigenous groups’ wants and needs would be the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. According to (Murdoch, 2011) Australia Government seized control of 73 remote Northern Territory indigenous communities to develop the area into a growing town. Intervention policies were introduced, in order to distribute common goods such as health, education and housing to the remote areas. The government focused on improving the health care and education system for the whole remote area. Nevertheless, majority of communities in different areas were dissatisfied, as they want development and maintenance of homelands as well as...