Hi All,
This is my first post. As someone who has recently taken much more in interest in Politics and Government of late, I have found myself gathering a lot of questions. The question I wish to ask first is, who exactly is the person/office who most concerns themselves with the protection of the 'property rights of the Crown or the Commonwealth'?

I'm assuming that all property rights of the Crown/Commonwealth are in a sense held by the Government on behalf of the people, but which office/individual within the Govt has the major role in protecting these rights of property? Is it the Head of State (which I am assuming is the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen)? The Attorney-General? The Cabinet of the day?

Any help and especially any authoritative sources would be greatly appreciated

Cheers

When I was a lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor 's Office , prior to retirement , I would have been able to answer this question authoritatively . Since my retirement , there may have been relevant legislative changes .

However , clearly , under the Constitution , the head of state [ though the Constitution does not mention a head of state ] is the Queen , represented by the Governor General federally and each State Governor in that State . The Constitution says nothing about ownership or protection of Commonwealth or State Government property .

Under section 64 of the Constitution , the Governor General may make an Administrative Arrangements Order , establishing Commonwealth Government Departments and appointing Secretaries of the Departments , also allocating responsibilities for the administration of the matters set out in that Order [ which is published in the Commonwealth Gazette ] beside the name of each relevant Department .

An Order can be changed at any time by the Governor General , by a fresh Order . This usually occurs after each election . One matter will be the management or protection of Commonwealth property . It used to be the Department of Finance and Administration [ formerly Department of Administrative Services and various other titled Departments ] .

Regardless of which Department administers Commonwealth property , its ownership is vested in the " Crown " [ meaning theoretically , whichever member of the British monarchy is for the time being the head of state ] . In reality , this means , federally , the Commonwealth government and , in each State , that State government .

For the States , the legal position is similar , but , probably , slightly different .

Try Googling " Government property ownership , Commonwealth / State government " and "Administrative Arrangements Orders ".

Many thanks jaylex..I appreciate the time put in to reply to me..

I did some searching on Administrative Arrangements Orders..it seems the G-G acts on the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

I've spent some time studying law on charities and so I know the Attorney-General has the role of parens patriae to property laid down for charities which in essence becomes 'public property'...and so I thought maybe the A-G would assume some sort of similar role to all property under the custodianship of the Govt/Crown, seeing as it all is 'public property', i.e. if the Crown is being sued the A-G and/or his Crown Solicitor is served (I may have this wrong so please forgive me if I have), and so if a question ever arose as to the effects of someone's proposed actions on the rights of the public property vested in the Crown, I thought maybe the A-G would be the person who would determine this.

I'm not to osure of the answers her emyself, but now that you've brought the question out of storage, I find myself quite keen to do my own research to find the answers. But before I do that, I'm just wondering in what capacity you're asking these questions? Is there any particular reason that you're looking for morei nformation on property rights?

Who exactly is the protector of Government property?

Particularly the Government Property that roams many of our country roads and delights (?) in jumping in front of motorists.
Moreover the Government leaves their dead property lying on or by the road to stink in the summer sun, and to continue to be a hazard.

Kangaroos and wallabies do belong to the Government; they must have a protector because it is an offence to take their carcass from a road
to use for dog-food.

Hi UdyRegan,
Im not asking in any specific or legal capacity, but am trying to resolve some conflicts of duties I have recently become aware of -some of these duties are moral and spiritual duties. I am working on the theory that if my plan of action to resolve my conflicts of duties will have no adverse effects on the rights of the State (crown/govt etc) or it's property, and that of any 3rd party, including of course it to be legal and not against public policy, that no one will have any legal reason to prevent me from doing it. I just believe it is the right and equitable thing to do to simply ask 'hey, im about to do this regarding that - is this going to cause the State any issues?'

Is Mise brings up an extremely valid point - although not exactly the same problem I am faced with, if one was stranded in the middle of nowhere because their car broke down, and the only way to prevent their dog dying of starvation would be to feed it road kill - there is a conflict of duties right there...who has the superior claim to that road kill in that situation? What happens if the dog-owner decides to oblige by the law, and therefore the dog starves to death, will he have a case to answer to the RSPCA? What happens if he ignores the law to fulfill his moral duties (and possibly his legal duties) to his dog?

What if the dog-owner could settle between himself and the State before-hand...'hey, im about to head off to Darwin and although I have plenty of supplies, if in the remote case i become stranded, i may need to survive off of road kill...will the state be affected by this?'...who would he write to and ask this?