Geoff Edwards
Allocation or Regulation: Reasserting Society’s Control Over Corporations Through Tenure.
This paper, by Society members the late David Marlow and Dr Geoff Edwards, was delivered by Geoff Edwards to the 25th annual conference of the International Association of Business and Society held in Sydney in 2014.
There is a fundamental defect in the neoclassical sub-discipline economics in its attitude to government activity. Neoclassical economics regards government activity as inherently inefficient and advocates outsourcing or privatisation as much is possible to commercial entities, the community or individuals. This ignores the power of ownership.
This paper explains that the direct tools of allocation of tenure or ownership are greater and simpler than the indirect tools of regulating private activity after privatisation. Tenure administration involves withholding permissions; regulation involves withdrawing them after they have been granted.
This paper was peer reviewed before publication by the IABS but the link on its website, other than to the conference program, (pdf here) has subsequently been broken.
Related Images:
Dan Daly, an officer of the Department of Primary Industries, compiled this critique of drought policy after being transferred to the Department’s Drought Secretariat. Qualified originally in agriculture and latterly in economics, his analysis was inconsistent with the conventional wisdom of the day.
” The potential for a drought begins on the first day after rain. As dry day follows dry day, the possibility of a drought developing increases. It can become difficult to distinguish
between ‘normal weather’ and ‘drought’. The distinction between what is normal and what is not blurs with each passing day.”
Society President Charles Nason was acquainted with Dan Daly. “Dan Daly was brave enough to speak out about his concerns about drought subsidies , was stood down as a result… It took a brave man to speak up in Qld those days.”
Mr Day was removed from the Secretariat in 1989 and his analysis came to an end. The book was published in 1994.
Related Images:
In 2020, the Royal Society of Queensland, along with the Australian Rangeland Society, submitted in favour of this initiative to the Government of Mongolia, sponsor of the proposal. The letter of support explains the justification.
Related Images:
Help us shape the future of the Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is at a turning point. After nearly two decades of calling the Smithsonian Institution home, BHL must transition to a new hosting structure beginning in January 2026. Since receiving that news, we’ve been working steadily to secure a strong and sustainable future for BHL. In our last update, we shared the appointment of a Transition Director, the formation of a Transition Team, and a partnership with a fiscal sponsor.
Today, we release our official Call for Support. This is a pivotal moment in BHL’s journey, and we are counting on our community to help spread the word and contribute in whatever ways you can. BHL’s enduring strength comes from its international consortium and diverse community of scientists and citizen scientists who use the platform to explore, understand, and protect biodiversity. Support comes in many forms–some visible, some behind the scenes–but all are vital to BHL’s future.
Additionally, in keeping with our commitment to transparency, we are updating our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to include information about the transition. New questions will be added regularly, so we encourage you to read and visit them often.
More About the Call for Support
🔗 Call for Support – Secure the Future of BHL
This global call invites partners to host or support BHL’s core roles, infrastructure, and services as we move through the next phase of our journey. From libraries and museums to universities, research centers, and nonprofit partners, we’re looking for new collaborators to carry BHL’s vital work forward.
We welcome support in the form of:
- Hosting key BHL roles or services (short- or long-term)
- Contributing in-kind support (e.g. staffing, infrastructure, expertise)
- Partnering on collaborative grants or funding proposals
- Providing financial support via our new fiscal sponsor
Key Dates
We encourage initial expressions of interest by 31 August 2025, with consideration continuing on a rolling basis.
Questions and expressions of interest can be directed to:
Kelli Trei, BHL Transition Director
Email: TransitionDirector@biodiversitylibrary.org
How You Can Help
Even if you or your institution isn’t in a position to provide financial or hosting support, you can still make a huge impact:
📢 Share this post and the Call for Support widely across your networks
🤝 Connect us with institutions, colleagues and funders who might want to get involved
💬 Contribute ideas: we welcome creative and collaborative proposals
🌱 Support BHL directly: Make a Donation
Together, We Can Secure BHL’s Future
For 20 years, BHL has given researchers, educators, and the public free access to centuries of biodiversity knowledge. With your help, we’ll ensure this incredible resource continues to thrive and grow for generations to come.
Related Images:
We are indebted to Jan Arens, President of the Gladstone Conservation Council, for the following documents detailing the damage being done to the Great Barrier Reef, nearshore marine habitats and onshore catchments in the name of economic development. The underlying message is Queensland Government’s willingness to override environmental safeguards, to disregard the evidence of expert members of the community and a general lack of transparency of environmental assessment procedures.
Response to Coordinator-General regarding Curtis Island LNG EIS.
Briefing note of 2013 highlighting damage from marine dredging, flying in the face of UNESCO’s advice.
Presentation of 2018 to the Coordinator-General on the Gladstone Energy and Ammonia Project and other matters.
Related Images:
This 176-page report (21 MB) summarises an eight-year program of pre-competitive gathering of geoscience information, by Geoscience Australia, completed in 2024.
The concept of public funding of pre-competitive, pre-project assessment of natural resources is a thoroughly respectable one as it produces information of benefit to a wide range of potential users including public authorities, local government, commercial firms and civic groups. It draws a distinction between general public information about Australia’s landscapes and information that a particular applicant for development approval needs to commission to justify their particular project. Too often the information that applicants gather is locked behind commercial paywalls or is not made public online.
It’s a feature of Geoscience Australia that the information it produces is of particular benefit to the fossil fuel industry (along with other mining companies), and turns up as a gift from the taxpayer to the fossil fuel companies.
The program was explained in a factsheet dated approximately 2016.
Related Images:
The proposal to develop a residential development on Hummock Hill Island follows a familiar trajectory: big talk; long delays while the proponent seeks to convince the authorities to grant permission; well-informed opposition from local conservation group – then nothing happens or the development has commenced and fails. QSN is indebted to Jan Arens, President of the Gladstone Conservation Council (GCC), for making available the Society’s submission on the development and for a contemporary (June 2025) update.
“There have been very good reasons to oppose development. Initially the Gladstone Regional Council rejected the $1.2 billion development proposal for credible reasons – concerns about its size, necessity, and infrastructure challenges—including the lack of water, sewerage, roads, and bridges. The Queensland Government stepped in to override the Council’s rejection because it saw the project as strategically significant for regional Queensland. The State Government exercised its “call-in” powers through the Coordinator-General, arguing that the project had the potential to boost tourism, create jobs, and stimulate the local economy. The government also required the developer, Eaton Place, to fund essential services on the island for 17 years.
“The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment granted approval for the development as a “controlled action” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This means the project was subject to so-called “strict” environmental conditions to ensure it did not negatively impact World Heritage values, threatened species, or migratory species in the area.”
A Google Maps image dated 2025 reveals no sign of development, indirectly confirming the validity of the GCC’s and the Regional Council’s critiques. As the ABC reported, the proposal has been on foot since 2005. The long delay cannot he blamed on an overbearing assessment process, but more on the inherent limitations imposed by the natural features of the site – remoteness from infrastructure, vulnerability to the elements, cost of installing services – and the sandflies! It is not surprising that a local conservation group, familiar as it is with the locality, with expert knowledge of the natural environment, has a more clear-sighted understanding of the limitations of the site than remote departments.
Submission to the proponent – January 2008, 48 pages.
Letter to federal Minister objecting – March 2011.
Letter to UNESCO.
Map.
Related Images:
From c.1995-2006 the Department of Natural Resources published a series of Resource Planning Guidelines that are no longer readily accessible . Some of these documents have enduring value, though legislation and policy has in many cases changed substantially since then. These papers are copyright to the Queensland Government. The Australian Web Archive has captured the set of published guidelines as they stood at August 2004: Resource Planning Guidelines in Trove.
Some titles are re-presented here:
B1-The Nature of Land Planning. 1998. This paper explains that land resources need to be planned to ensure that they are used sustainably.
B2-Allocation, Regulation and Management: Three Approaches to Resource Sustainability. 2002. This paper outlines a conceptual framework for understanding how land in Queensland is administered.
C5-Translating NRM Planning Between the Regional and Property Scales, 2004. Conceptualises the procedures for land-use planning.
E3 Strategic Data Capture Plan, 2004. A list of the data sets required to form prudent decisions about the use of land and natural resources, with explanations. See post “Condition and Trend“.
E51 Benefit/Cost of Land Resource Assessment: The Leichhardt Downs (Burdekin) Study, 2005. An economic analysis of the value of coordinated land resource assessment, demonstrating a benefit cost ratio of more than 50 to 1, primarily on account of avoided errors.
F9 Determining Most Appropriate Use, 2005. This paper explains the principles to apply in evaluating an area of land to determine its ‘most appropriate use’. Although this exercise is best known as part of the process of allocating State land (see s.16 of the Land Act 1994), the concepts can usefully be applied during other procedures such as writing reserve management plans or designating land in planning schemes; and for resources other than land.
G100 Implementing Natural Resource Management Plans: Ensuring that something happens, 2004. Explains property rights, tools for achieving conservation and NRM, constituting a coordinating body. A good read for members and staff of NRM and landcare groups. This paper consolidates a few themes covered in previous Guidelines. The repetition was deliberate, so that each paper would stand on its own.
E31 Assessing, Evaluating and Protecting Land as Open Space, 1999. This paper explains how to assess and evaluate the open space attributes of a parcel of land or a group of parcels. It also explains how to weigh up the need to apply protective mechanisms. It examines the meaning of ‘regional’ as differentiated from ‘local’ open space.
Related Images:
As the likelihood of legislation to limit clearing of native vegetation gained public notoriety in the late 1990s, and pre-emptory clearing accelerated, concern by rural landholders in particular about ‘property rights’ intensified. Heated meetings were held around the State. The Department of Natural Resources commissioned two significant consultancies and its own officers produced a significant internal report. These analyses lead to a government decision not to pay ‘compensation’ for newly imposed restrictions (which were of a regulatory and not proprietorial nature), but instead to establish funds for industry adjustment, property management planning and purchase of distressed enterprises.
Institutional Reform in Rural Australia: Defining and Allocating Property Rights, Tony Gleeson and Kirstie Piper, 2002.
Property Rights and Natural Resource Management, Ian Reeve, Institute of Rural Futures, 2002.
The Department’s internal paper was titled as if confined to property in water, but that was an artifact of late-stage internal negotiations; the analysis applies also to land.
In 2002 the Department commissioned eminent planner and lawyer Phil Day to produce an Issues Paper examining the concept of betterment – the taxing of the unlearned increment in value when government decisions and the general advance of a community result in a rising value of land. The paper – Incentives and Disincentives – the Potential of Property Taxes to Reinforce Public Policy Objectives wasn’t published but a copy has fallen from the back of a truck into QSN’s hands.
Maps of land use and land tenure in South-east Queensland:
Public land map – April 2008.
Map plus table.
Land use summary for the SEQ NRM region – June 2014.
In 2014 the Queensland Government published a Discussion Paper envisaging freeholding some of the public land estate. The Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation (now Outdoors Queensland) commissioned a report titled Underpinning the Foundations of the Four Pillars. Queensland State Land–. A copy of the State’s Discussion Paper Strengthening our economic future has been annotated with detailed comments by QORF’s consultant.
Related Images:
Professor Hugh Possingham has been awarded one of the global scientific community’s highest honours with his election as a Fellow of the Royal Society.
A world-leading ecologist, Professor Possingham is one of 90 scientific experts from across the world who have been awarded fellowship of the London-based Royal Society this year. He was elected for his contributions to biological diversity and nature conservation, including his role in co-developing a leading conservation planning tool that is used in more than 180 countries.
Professor Possingham is currently a VC Senior Research Fellow in the University of Queensland’s School of the Environment, and he is an Affiliate of both the Centre for Marine Science and the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science. He also served as Queensland’s Chief Scientist from 2020 to 2022.
The Fellowship of the Royal Society is made up of the world’s most eminent scientists,
engineers and technologists. Past Fellows include luminaries such as Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein.