Well there are precedents. Under US law a company is a person.
The company has the rights of a person.

Once again the rabid right start running off at the mouth, claims by the Abbott Rabbit that "Next the river will get the vote and a welfare cheque". But wait there's more Hassy not to be out done claims "they will become some sort of deity, develop a priesthood to stand for them, & which will extract millions from the mere mortals." The Unterfuhrer needing his daily dose of Green bashing has discovered to his angst, and all through his minds eye, that there could be for instance a requirement that trucks and travellers obtain a paid permits for any 'camping' stops along highways and reserves that are presently 'unregulated' public land. It would be a monster department with far-reaching powers." Just thumping the rostrum to warm up ah Leo

Hi Paul,

Improve environmental protection laws and increase funding for Departments of the Environment. End of.

Now back to the real world.

Joe

Bazz, under any law that recognises companies, companies have the rights of persons to some extent. But companies are just groups of people, and so they have intention. They consciously do things to other things, and have things done to them, and can be forced to change what they do, again on an intentional basis. None of this applies to natural objects which are inanimate. The idea that something inanimate can have rights is wrong.

Seems to me we are now living in a pagan polytheistic age, where atheism rather than having banished religion, by concentrating its firepower on monotheism, has allowed a thousand weeds to bloom. Ironically, it appears the only religion that has to be separate from the state, is the one that gave rise to secularism in the first place - Christianity. All others, no matter how primitive, and/or half-baked, are welcome.

Paul1405,

The topic awaits you.

Plainly my and most Australians concept of the democratic, freedom-valuing Small State where the fundamental purpose of law is protection of the individual and where there is absolutely minimal State (and law) interference in individual lives and affairs, is completely anathema to you and the Greens as Statists in favour of the Big State and 'Open Door' immigration, the last mentioned simply and cynically to suck far left votes from Labor.

But then I also favour as most do, the distribution of political power among several levels of government as we presently enjoy and has served us well. Besides, a Big State supporter must have very short memories if they learned nothing from the Rudd insulation mess and the deaths. Obviously government and bureaucrats that are closer to the grassroots should be better advised than that.

It astonishes me that some, not many, people such as yourself put their allegiance to a political party, in your case the highly controversial ginger group of the NSW Greens, ahead of their own judgement and are so willing to let others make their minds up for them.

Instead of taking the easy way of passing more laws where laws already exist and the system is already self-correcting through other means - an example in this case being the ethical investment that is a consideration of large superannuation funds - politicians should be putting their shoulders into the original, fundamental purposes for which government was thought of and established in the first place.

Frankly I do not see much worth and only waste of Parliament's time and resources in the Greens acting as a protest party and just to put already entitled middle class elite into Senate seats so they can be disruptive (annoying the mainstream is such fun, eh?) and live in clover forever after.

Giving legal rights to inaminate objects is simply more attention-seeking and an opportunity for serial activists such as the Greens protest party to throw their weight around with no care and no interest in coordinating policy across the whole rage of government responsibilities.

Paul,

GY has neatly pinned your rampant hypocrisy. This legalistic fantasy is purely a sop to a minority religion that probably holds no more sway over the Maori population than Aesop's fables holds over western society.

Bazz,

All companies in the US Aus, etc are considered Juristic persons. This is to enable them to own property and form contracts, and separates the business from the shareholders that own it. This is very different from a river that owns itself.

I wonder if a person injures himself in the river who would he sue, the river or the state that used to own it?