Laws of the land create an unjust environment

scubasteve says:

08:26am | 09/04/11

worst hijack ever

Bev says:

10:44am | 09/04/11

Off topic, gong.

Damien Rogers says:

05:29pm | 09/04/11

Hi, Im the brother of the lady who has been fighting to get a small house on her 330acre farm. While the Council have done everything to try stop her, and send her broke, They have also been doing large developments all around her on their own land. Often without any environmental (or other) studies at all. We used freedom of information to discover their corruption and hypocrisy. Not that anybody will hold them accountable?

sam says:

12:30pm | 13/02/12

its not nice when people just take your land is it, we have short memorys in Australia, if its a crime now then its always been a crime

carol says:

07:40am | 09/04/11

Of course the article is ‘one sided’..it is merely telling the story from the victim’s point of view…What is wrong with that? Clearly their point of view hasn’t been heard yet. They are pointing out the facts the laws need to be amended.

acotrel says:

07:52am | 09/04/11

If you are in business you must learn to manage the risks!  Contempt for the environment is counterproductive!

John Mikkelsen says:

08:52am | 09/04/11

Actually TChong, it was written with the aim of provoking thought and discussion about a topic which many people would be unaware of, hopefully contributing to the desired outcome - a sensible balance of environmental controls and property owners’ rights. There are many other examples which seem to indicate this is now sadly lacking.
Thanks for your input.

michael j says:

08:57am | 09/04/11

In the early 80 s when i was in survivalist mode ( Ronald Raygun ) WAS
terrorising the free world by saying he blow the not so free world to hell
with his space based star wars program,,so after looking for land for some time to survive the nuclear holocaust
i settled on a few hundred acres of of mountain side opposite a state forest that joined a national park with a very nice creek with a good swimming hole( platerpus swimming round sealed the deal ) so after a few years of fencing and building,some cattle,n, a farm management
course ,,some of these new laws starting coming in the main ones at the time were having to do with a 12.5 degree slope ,,you had to have a permit to do anything over that slope,,that met not dropping a tree or even picking up dead wood for the fire ( cooking ) but the best one is/was goundsell bush a noxious weed,,goundsel was controlled by the local council and they would issue you a notice to clear the weed/tree
within a month or you get a big fine $50,000 ,but because it was over the 12.5 slope you had to get a permit from the new land management board
this took about 3 months the fine for doing work without a permit was then $250,000 so it was a matter of close you eyes n hope for the best
but they turned the forest into wilderness and no one was allowed to even go bushing walking without a big fine/jail sentence,,there were grounsell trees on the other side of creek 18 foot high their seed just blows everywhere anyway,,and no one would clear it ,council says national parks say that’s wilderness not our job,,yeah i feel sorry for any one caught up in that mess,,but the government should not take peoples land or houses with out proper compensation,,,,

Brian W says:

09:24am | 09/04/11

True acotrel but there are probably enough natural, market based risks to keep most business operators busy. Added capricious and arbitrary government risks will overwhelm some business operators. These risks are less predictable, more chaotic and difficult to manage.

mags says:

09:25am | 09/04/11

Obviously you do not live in a rural community or you would not be so quick to criticise what you do not know first hand. Farmers have been under siege from state governments for decades about what they can and can’t do on their own land. Until you have personally paid out millions of dollars for land, animals or crops then you are not qualified to pass judgment. Farmers are the real conservators of the land, it is in their interests to be so. All the city dwelling rhetoric in the world doesn’t change that. They live and work under conditions that a fragile flower like you couldn’t even imagine and it’s a 24/7 deal. Try doing qithout them and see where you get. In Queensland the government has legislated that the farmer owns what is on top of the land but not what is underneath. This has enabled them to sell off mining permits to enable companies to deface and destroy good farming land, pollute the water table and give piddling compensation to the farmer for the privilege. Many farmers have sold properties that have been in their families for generations because they have no control over what they paid good money for. Put yourself in their place and see how you would react. I notice you and acotrel work in tandem. Are you a tag team?

Sony B Goode says:

10:52am | 09/04/11

What we need is constitutional protection against willful harm perpetrated on the population by cultural and economic socialists and their unwitting allies. A bill of rights enshrining basic rights and a return to natural justice and presumption of innocence in the welfare programs called the land courts and the family court.

Judiciary should be subject to popular election to clear out the cognac communists and chardonnay socialists that have embedded themselves in these institutions raining harm on all before them who aspire to prosperity.

sam says:

01:30pm | 13/02/12

I would like to see people acknowledge where all the weeds came from in the first place? would like to see the alpine cattle graziers clean up the mess they have created, we have weeds at the top of our catchments thanks to the introduction of a foreign species, we need more regulation, they should move if it becomes to expensive like all other un viable communitys are forced to, if only all remote communitys got government money to prop them up,  if its not viable then try something else like any other person looking to make profits, companys fail everyday, if we prop them up it only results in a precived entitlement and encourage the me me me I I I want want want attitudes most have to grow out of, stop gaining at the loss to the environment, it does fine without us so respect it, dont use it

Jennifer Green says:

04:43pm | 10/04/11

It’s unjust that government representing the majority have any sense of domain over what anybody does on their own land or to thierself.

Really cannot understand why we are even here in 2011 debating moderation of such abuse of our rights to what we call our own.  Its wrong at all that anybody can make up new and temporary laws that benefit some clerical goal and intrude on our rights to make our own decisions about what we choose to own and be responsible for.

I chose to own and care for a farm - do they even mow their own lawns?

The Government cant manage its own estate let alone mine.

And dont get me started abut permits and licences and limits - half my trees are still standing dead ringbarked back in 1908 by government mandate.

And I wont hijack the thread about the stupid hemp prohibition and how hard it is to start a sensible market with all the costs and restrictions on potency - hey wait a minute when will the law come that limits the milk content of milk - the coffeeness of coffee, the whininess of grapes or the tomatoness of tomatoes - soon ... be warned.

Considered Opinion says:

08:00am | 11/04/11

Maybe the fact of a spelling/usage error in the title is what has more spelling errors than normal this morning.

Disgusting.

Matt says:

08:30am | 09/04/11

The Badger, you should try farming some time. You may get a bit of (sorely lacking) perspective.

The Badger says:

10:43am | 09/04/11

I am a farmer matt.

Farmer says:

11:10am | 09/04/11

Wake up to yourselves. This is fair dinkum. I read all the comments, some reasonable some just communist attitudes.
What prejudice there is in the community! Unreal - ill informed opinions are on here!
DDT - banned in Australia, Banned in East and West Africa too - then the UN brought DDT (YES THE UN ) back to stem the millions of deaths due to Malaria in East and West Africa.
Australian farmers are NOT going to tell people like you what we have on our land - why the hell should we? You tar us all with the one brush as doing OUR environment damage - bull shit!
Legislation and laws brought in do more damage than most farmers ever could!

de beers says:

12:05pm | 09/04/11

An idication of how out of touch Badger is the reference to DDT, a chemical that has been banned in Australia many, many years ago.

Give some credit for those you live within & observe that part of the landscape that they belong to & manage.

Matt says:

02:05pm | 09/04/11

The Badger must use DDT. He is a farmer after all. Maybe he didn’t get the memo?

John Mikkelsen says:

02:38pm | 09/04/11

I thought it was Joni Mitchell

The Badger says:

03:02pm | 09/04/11

full points to you john
I guess the farmers are too busy saving the environment and listening to Kasey Chambers while watching the cotton grow.

JT says:

04:05pm | 09/04/11

In the 10 years from 2000 to 2010 only 10% of farmers accessed Drought assistance and in the recent floods in Eastern Australia the same funds were available to any small business,be it a hardware store or a farm.Several hundred thousand individuals have accessed disaster recovery payments as well.Many farmers are environmentally concious,many are not but times and attitudes change.It was a neccessity of owning a lease once that a certain amount of a property had to be cleared,now that is banned so most farmers just change with the times or get out.If there is a way to grow crops without chemicals it will be done,cotton is grown with a fraction of the chemicals than in the past.

Neff says:

02:11pm | 11/04/11

A farmer Badger? More like a hobby farmer. I am a real farmer & have never received compensation for either fire or flood. And both have devestated my property. I dont whinge & whine like the hobby farmers as soon as hardship hits. Just get in & work to repair things. However I have never been unlucky enough to come up against the bullies of the “environment protection”.

acotrel says:

08:26am | 09/04/11

I’ve heard Rachel Carson called a misanthrop, and claims that her work in having DDT banned has caused thousands of malaria deaths.  This disregards the fact that widespead use of pesticides causes insect populations to mutate, adapt, and become resistant.  If DDT had not been banned, it would probably by now have become ineffective, and we’d have lost thousands of bird species!

Super D says:

10:15am | 09/04/11

In case anyone is wondering what alcopop is talking about…

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

The Redman says:

10:23am | 09/04/11

Prosperity, Sony? Surely your not describing farmers as prosperous. After all, every second day all we hear is how tough farmers are doing it. And let’s talk about minorities and their disproportinate rights. Unless I’m very much mistaken, the vast majority of Australian’s live both on the coast and in urban centres. Farmers represent a miniscule percentage of the workforce nationally. And yet, the enjoy the highest subsidies of any industry. When the weather is against them, they demand and receive billions of dollars in assistance. And they demand their city cousins raise millions more in donations.

Further, their political representatives, The Nationals, always have a significant voice when the Coalition is in Government, and yet they barely poll half a million votes nationally. And you’ve got the nerve to speak about overinflated rights? I think you’ll find there are far more citizens concerned about environmental vandalism than their are about the rights of farmers to drain the river so they can grow crops on the edge of the Simpson Desert.

JT says:

04:17pm | 09/04/11

Redman,
Speaking of subsidies you mustn’t have heard of the car industry or the childcare industry or public transport etc.Australian farmers are the least subsidised in the world and as I said earlier only 10% of farmers accessed drought relief between 2000 and 2010.you should remember every time you eat where it comes from.Not from a city.

Observant says:

06:05pm | 12/04/11

“Unless I’m very much mistaken, the vast majority of Australian’s live both on the coast and in urban centres. Farmers represent a miniscule percentage of the workforce nationally”

True Redman, but you’re forgetting that farmers actually produce and create wealth, unlike their city dwelling counterparts; who are best at consuming resources and depleting wealth.

You are flippant in regards to property rights clearly, “overinflated rights”, so I must refer you to the works of John Locke & J.S. Mill (and Thomas Jefferson for good measure) who understood the absolute critical importance of preserving property rights as a means of preserving liberty and checking government power. The end goal is decentralisation of political & economic power and preventing the institutionalisation of tyranny. Property rights are as essential to freedom as is habeas corpus.

You are either an unwitting useful idiot, furthering the centralisation of power, or an evil power-brokering control-freak who is not happy unless everyone around you is also a slave (basically so that you can feel better about your own servility & inability to act independently).

The latter or former which one are you? No spinning, ducking, diving, dodging or otherwise cowardly weaving around this question Redman.

John Mikkelsen says:

10:49am | 09/04/11

CJ, last time I looked, Greens deputy leader Christine Milne also had a group page on that “Red Neck blog site Just Grounds”. And I agree about the threat posed to farmers’ rights by mining and the latest $65 billion LNG developments, but that’s a whole new topic. Meanwhile the environmental laws focus on farmers, while building gas wells, hundreds of km of pipeline and three massive liquifaction plants on Curtis Island, in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, is apparently all fine for the state and federal governments. There are seagrass beds, home to dugongs, rare snubfin dolphins and other marine and bird life involved there.  I’m not necessarily anti- development but it smacks of double standards.

Mary Camercon says:

11:27am | 09/04/11

CJ Morgan, I don’t think the ‘redneck ratbags’ outnumber ‘good farmers’.  And the current Vegetation Control Legislation forces farmers to think more short term than long term, by creating uncertainty about their rights to use the property as they see fit.  Are all farmers great environmental custodians?  Of course not.  But it is not in the farmers interest to abuse the land and make it unproductive.  Your argument does not make any sense at all.
Yes, Coal Seam Gas extraction is a worry for me.
Your adhoms on Just Grounds members are baseless.  There is ample and robust debate on the site, and I love it.

de beers says:

12:16pm | 09/04/11

CJ, perhaps your perspective is darkened by the belief that any one the other side of the socialist left is in on the right that you make the call that anyone who is politically centre right to be an extremist.

Mining is a large threat to prime cropping lands but just perhaps it is off topic for this discussion. Just because it isn’t mentioned in this article is a reason for you to go on the attack.

CJ Morgan says:

01:25pm | 09/04/11

John, you and I both know how people who don’t toe the lunar right line are treated at (Un)just Grounds, no matter how polite and reasonable they are.  In my case, I was summarily banned from the site for simply disagreeing with someone politely.  The boofhead who banned me didn’t even pretend to follow your own rules.

Yes, there is a group there with Christine Milne’s name on it, but the only activity on it for quite some time has been posts from anti-Green rednecks, including the boofhead referred to above.  That site is the Internet equivalent of the loony anti-environmental rallies organised by the odious Alan Jones et al recently.

As I intimated, any reasonable person who bothers to wade through the muck that passes for ‘debate’ over there is very unlikely to emerge with much sympathy for the site’s pet causes.

de beers says:

02:07pm | 09/04/11

sour grapes is it CJ that brings forth such words loaded with vinigar

peter laux says:

02:26pm | 09/04/11

It’s amazing how we have let government bureaucrats dictate to its citizens what they can and cannot do on their own land.
It is a precursor for a more authoritarian state where freedoms are curtailed one by one.
If I harm the neighbouring land, laws should address that, but an individuals land should never be the alienated plaything of simpering control freaks.

Julene Haack says:

02:52pm | 09/04/11

Hello CJ,
You were suspended from Just Grounds because you had contravened one of the Terms of Use of our site (which you agree to comply with when you become a member of the community):

“You agree that you will not post, email or make available any content
or use this Network ...in a manner that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person’s explicit consent.”

The incident I am referring to:  A fellow member of Just Grounds had commented on a Punch article using a pseudonym.  Through your involvement with Just Grounds you were able to “out” the identity of the person using the pseudonym and you did so in comments on The Punch.

It is true that an unusual feature of Just Grounds is the requirement to use real names; however, we do NOT compel our members to use their real names in other forums.

Similarly, it is true that you did not receive the usual “three strikes and you are out” policy of moderation.  However, moderation on Just Grounds is open to discretion on the part of Moderators - and, in your case, immediate suspension was deemed warranted.

I hope this will provide some balance for other readers to your comments about our website.

Julene Haack
(Moderator, Just Grounds Community)

John Mikkelsen says:

02:57pm | 09/04/11

I thought the article was about land owners rights, not chips on shoulders which have nothing to do with me or the PRA discussions on that topic (which is where the final link led).

Farmer Joe says:

03:01pm | 09/04/11

CJ Morgan
You reference to the “‘Just Grounds’ redneck blog site” is very apt.
The original “rednecks” were the Covenenters of Scotland who took a stand against the injustices imposed by the bishops. They wore a red ribbon around their necks to show their unity. Hence the term “redneck”.
Many Scots migrated to the United States. Theye were a large ethnic group within the farming communities of the south (places like the Great Smoky Mountains). In the late 1800s and early 1900s, they were involved in Trade Union action for justice against the big coal miners and others. The National Guard and Pinkertons men were called in to bring them to heel. Towns were burned, people (including women and children) killed. The people did not forget their heritage and wore a red bandana around their necks to distinguish themselves. Hence the term “redneck” again.
The term was later applied to anyone who worked in the sun, particularly farming. I guess that applies to many members of the “Just Grounds” community. And because members of that community are clearly out there fighting for justice - as the rednecks have always done - I guess they would be proud to be called “rednecks”. It is certainly no slight to be called so.
John Mikkelsen has illustrated the problem by showing the plight of some families. I am astonished that his critics can display so little empathy..

CJ Morgan says:

05:08pm | 09/04/11

Ah yes, Julene.  Which one of the Mikkelsen brothers was it again, deploying a sock puppet at The Punch?

Thanks for letting me know why I was banned.  That’s the first time any of you have had the courtesy to inform me why.

@ John Mikkelsen - I wouldn’t have mentioned the (Un)Just Grounds hate site if you hadn’t plugged it in your article.  I’ve just had a look over there, and it seems to have gone to the dogs since the rednecks took over the old Agmates site.

Lazy Les says:

05:20pm | 09/04/11

CJ, you’re not very understanding to the issue that John has highlighted in this article. It is a very real problem for farmers and unless you really don’t care, why comment so negatively, especially on a group of everyday people who come together to learn about other opinions and concerns.
Johns articles are very informative and as I no longer live on the land, I wouldn’t know what issues farmers are facing. I have concerns about all Asutralians whether they are right or left, not just some .
People who make the decisions that affect farmers have never been to a farm, never lived on a farm but sit in their concrete towers and make legislation that will affect what was once a vital industry for the country. I am not happy to see farms being sold off, farmers suffering, nor am I happy to know that getting Australian produce is becoming more a rarity than the norm. You cannot negotiate with someone who does not understand or even know much about life on the land.
Hounding these people is not on and it should stop. We aren’t a communist country yet? Or are we?

Farmer says:

09:52am | 10/04/11

CJ Morgan,
I find you assault on here disturbing. You and I had some really good discussions on Just Grounds, in fact many times you thanked me for my contribution.
Why then would you portray all members of that site the way you have?
It is the same as saying that all contributors on “The Punch” are anti farmer, anti environment and everything in between.
Very disappointed in your comments mate. I hope you are just “venting” not anything more.

Boofhead says:

08:50pm | 10/04/11

Hell hath no fury like an old troll scorned.

I do remember reading one too many poison pen gems from you and reaching for the X button.

Here’s a tip- Pay $50 a month to ning and launch your own “solar and lunar, CSIRO -junk science AGW , Flannery type conspiracies and invite all your mates to join up and we’ll see what ole CJ is made of?

Observant says:

06:26pm | 12/04/11

“That’s why State governments have had to enact environmental protection laws, which would be unnecessary if farmers had behaved in a sustainable manner in the past.”

Complete and utter BULLSH!T. Care to explain the causality of this chain of events? Or do you just assume that no one will challenge your unproven assumptions?

If you told a more accurate version of history you would note that a lot of the environmental laws, especially in locking up land and creating national parks, were a means of preventing dams being built; hence why the land chosen were some of the best catchments in the country. Crickets chirping and still no evidence that we have a problem with ‘vandal farmers’... still no explanation as to why a landowner would forsake their own self-interest and destroy their land, nor any evidence of it occurring on the scale you imply.

But go ahead, keep spewing your loaded language, ad hominems, unfounded assumptions, logical fallacies and emotional based arguements; it’s a big red flashing light advertising the fact that you have no reason or logic to back up your anti-liberty dogma.

I also note that in a previous punch article, “Is it time the latte-sippers left the bogans’ party?”, you’ve declared your servility in thinking the Greens are somehow different from the main parties (different, yeah right!). You also failed to defend your comments in that article, unsurprisingly. What’s the bet that you won’t defend your comments (or give up half-way when you realise you can’t possibly defend your position)?

The Badger says:

11:02am | 09/04/11

You don’t know what you got till it’s gone.

Beejay says:

12:45pm | 09/04/11

@Simon:
No - farmers just want to do what is their trade - grow whatever it is to supply food for you and all Australians.  I suppose you would prefer that everything should be imported?
Well good luck, sonny, when this happens due to overly rigid laws that city folk make without consultation with anyone who really knows the land.
.  I suppose you don’t care though as I s’pose the government keeps you in necessities.

de beers says:

01:11pm | 09/04/11

Clean air & water are important but along side that we also have a just society. In the striding forward to achieve environmental ideals, some have overstepped the mark & have treated the people who live within the landscape in a very shabby manner.

The Redman says:

10:24am | 09/04/11

Excellent post. Farmers are the greatest drain on welfare than any other sector.

Carly says:

10:55am | 09/04/11

@ Redmond

Yeah, those farmers, what a waste of space. It’s not like we need food or anything.

Withnail says:

10:57am | 09/04/11

Keep it quite you guys, you know how sensitive these farmers are.

de beers says:

12:26pm | 09/04/11

Shane a comment either incorrect or twisted.
Farmers are taxed to what business enity that they are structured as, an individual, a partnership, a trust or as a corporation.
Currently as proposed farmers aren’t included in either side of the eqation as far as a carbon tax is concerned, They are not at all paid for carbon farming. The carbon tax will be a cost burden because of the increases in input costs.

Beejay says:

12:57pm | 09/04/11

Shane, NO!! farmers are not allowed to let their cattle graze wherever they like.  Just as the Queensland Government is at the present time trying to stop horses being allowed in National Parks.  What do they want kids to do?  Of course - sit in front of a computer and play games.
These kids in country areas, as well as their peers, enjoy quiet rides along trails in the areas where they have been allowed.  This keeps bushfire danger lower as they constantly look after the areas where they go as they want to be able to enjoy outdoor activities into the future.
It seems some of you have a mental blockage that no one should be allowed to do anything that you cannot do in the city..  I doubt you would survive in the country anyway from that you are posting.
The taking of land from people and locking it up has to stop.
By the way farmers in case you aren’t aware are not the rich people that you seem to think they are.  They may be rich in some aspects of life but no all have ready cash for things.  That is usually tied up in one wayor another.  They do not get a weekly pay packet like you probably do.  You wait for months to get paid sometimes - depending what line you are in.

Farmer Joe says:

03:22pm | 09/04/11

Not very clever, Shane.
I am a farmer. NO tax at trust rates. Pay my taxes just like you (if you do). NOT paid to grow anything under the carbon farming initiative. I have 1200 hectares locked up in timber and probably increasing at 4 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year - not worth a cent to me (but certainly a good income if I could get it). NO subsidies for drought - de-stocked and managed my own way through that. NO subsidies for floods. Fixed my own flood damage (but the house escaped, thank goodness). NO subsidised funding to send my kids to boarding school. NO multimillion dollar property value inflation due to the commodities boom. I am actually managing my production within limits because we are working with the traditional owners to preserve cultural heritage and that impacts on what we can and cannot do. But, hey, isn’t that the socially responsible way to act?
NO government rent assistance, child subsidies, fat superannuation contributions, unemployment or other government pay checks. Self-sufficient, self-supporting (and supporting a few others, too). Not an exception. We all do our own thing in our own way.
There are people on the land out there who have suffered grave injustices. I think it is worth standing up for - and alongside - them. We know there are some who are comfortable in their taxpayer subsidised lives who could not give a damn. But that won’t change any time soon. Some want to work to solve problems. Others want to heap scorn on them. Like I said, we all do our own thing in our own way.
Call me a redneck if you will. I am proud to be one. The rednecks have always fought for justice.

The Redman says:

10:13am | 09/04/11

I spent the best part of a decade in regional NSW, and I could not agree with you more, Darren. It is a farce that farmers continue to claim their love for the environment while insisting on their right to grow entirely inappropriate crops in entirely inappropriate environments - rice in western NSW for example. Farmers appear to be champions of environmental protection - as long as it has no affect on them personally, in which case environmentalists suddenly become eviro-nazi’s, or green loonies.

If, as the author claims, the majority of farmers are enviornmentalists with a deep and abiding respect and love for their surroundings, might someone explain the embarrassing and outrageous display in regional centres regarding the allocation of water from the dying murray-darling basin? Where is the respect for the environment here?

It is clear that the farming community has no intention of ever willingly make any efforts, compromises or sacrifices for the good of the environment. While you’re correct that there have been changes over the past few decades, Darren, farmers have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into those changes, which invariably had to be legislated as the farmers will do nothing voluntarily.

CJ Morgan says:

10:47am | 09/04/11

Quite so, Darren.  I live in the bush and I would characterise very few of my farmer neighbors as environmentalists.  Such native wildlife and vegetation that remain in our district only do so despite the activities of farmers, not because of them.

Fortunately, we now have National Parks in the district that act as a refuge for them.  Strangely, these are very popular with tourists who come from all over the country and globe to experience what remains of our natural environment.

Star Gazer says:

11:34am | 09/04/11

We visited a farm recently and I can tell you that I saw ‘protected’ regrowth causing soil erosion.  So measures by the State Government to ‘protect’ vegetation without any compensation mind you have done the reverse of the stated intent.

Matt says:

02:09pm | 09/04/11

I grew up in the city and I can assure you of two things: city dwellers have a ridiculous sense of entitlement and they do immense damage to the environment. I’ve seen them completely wipe out creeks, clear 3000 odd acres of bushland full of wallabies, possums, lyre birds and so on. While very little has changed in the last 30 years, thanks to my experience I’m more than a little skeptical of city dwellers pretending they’re environmentally conscientious.

The Badger says:

03:13pm | 09/04/11

matt
city dwellers?
I think you mean developers and corrupt public officials.
It’s hardly city dwellers who give themselves approval to clear 300 acres of bush and screw the environment.

Lazy Les says:

05:26pm | 09/04/11

CJ Morgan. You are giving the impression you are an avid environmentalist. Is this true?

Farmer Joe says:

02:05pm | 10/04/11

Yes, Matt is right in his reference to city dwellers. City dwellers buy the developed blocks, want their shopping centres, sports grounds, rubbish tips etc. Just because you don’t cut down the tree yourself doesn’t mean your hands are clean. We all live at the expense of the environment. Anyone who claims to do otherwise really isn’t on top of the game.

de beers says:

12:53pm | 09/04/11

I will agree in part with a single point that you made that is it is questionable to zone land for residential blocks in areas known for decades as a high bushfire risk.. But once that land has been sold to people with the right to build there, then to remove them from those areas they must be fully compensated.

Beejay says:

01:04pm | 09/04/11

Redman,
Oh so it is not only farmers who are stupid!! 
Of course the government/councils are to blame for allowing development in some areas - such as those latest disastrous bushfires in Victoria.  If that land had not been developed those people would not have been there.
However, having said that, because it was developed - legally - paople must be allowed to look after themselves by being able to clear around their homes.  Greenies have to be held accountable for those ridiculous laws that no one can clear around their homes.  That poor fellow who got fined was the only whose house was left standing.  What does that prove???

JeffT says:

01:15pm | 09/04/11

@ The Redman,
You don’t accept that clearing surrounds would have saved lives and property. Wrong !
If you would recall, there was a property owner in the Kinglake area that cleared around his property and was fined $50,000 for doing it. But his property and their lives were saved by this clearing. It is since the Green menace, armed with LA21 and backed by the ICLEI , an international association of local governments and their associations has made living in fire prone areas dangerous.
The Nillumbik Shire, being part of the Black Saturday fires affected areas, has LA21 on their statutes and has recently signed up membership with ICLEI.

The Redman says:

04:02pm | 09/04/11

I would imagine that the Greens opposed widespread settlement in these areas in the first place. The decision to even allow residential building on the scale it became is the wrong one, not whether residents had the right to clear their land. If the Greens succeeded in preventing wholesale land clearing, then I congratulate them. If people want to live in these areas, they take that risk. That doesn’t mean they have the right to destroy all of the surrounding bushland. That is not to say they cannot do some clearing, which I’m sure they can, but if the laws are there, you follow them. If you’ve been fined, you’ve broken the law. Or do you suggest that people who voluntarily live in these fire prone regions are in fact above the law? In any case, noone is forced to live in these areas, just as noone is forced to be a farmer. And there is a simple solution if living in a fire prone area is dangerous. Don’t live there.

Observant says:

06:51pm | 12/04/11

Once again Redman, you have utterly failed in identifying and analysing causality.

Firstly, the decision to build and live in an area in many cases was made decades ago, when appropriate clearing was done; hence the then low fire risk. Now that clearing is more restricted and with the creation of unmanaged unkempt national parks, areas that were once relatively safe, are no longer.

Secondly, the expectation that any geographic area prone to some sort of natural disaster should not be inhabited at all is farcical. Large swaths of earths’ urban city centres would not exist today if this dogmatic policy were enacted. This ‘policy’ is especially onerous and unpractical when you consider that in many disaster prone areas, quite easily the risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level, but for council/state intervention into property rights.

No one is suggesting that if land clearing was more unrestricted, that 150+ victims of black saturday would have all survived. But perhaps 10, 20, 30 or even 50 of those deaths could have been prevented (depending on the property) had a proper firebreak been allowed. To suggest 0 lives would have been saved if clearing was allowed in certain areas is indefensible no matter how you look at it.

But it is clear from your support of the Greens, who value untouched nature more than human presence, that your regard for individual human life is rather flippant.

Please next time you post, try using reason and not emotion to base your arguement on.

Dan says:

10:16am | 09/04/11

Maybe because the national parks are overun with foxes that noone is allowed to shoot?

Maybe because of urban sprawl destroying habitat

Maybe becaues of cars running over wildlife

Maybe becaues of pollution from urban factories

Its not only the farmers who are responsible for the environment

Les says:

10:16am | 09/04/11

Zaf, have you heard of cities and the land they are swallowing up? And the mines??

Zaf says:

02:48pm | 09/04/11

I *knew* it was somebody else’s fault.  Thanks for easing my mind on that.

Farmer Joe says:

05:56pm | 10/04/11

Well, Zaf, what is happening and what you are told may be two very different things. If one is a researcher dealing with biodiversity you will get more funding for pointing to problems that need to be fixed than by saying it’s all OK. But let’s talk about bio-diversity. Goodness knows, no Government officer ever comes along to a farmer and wants to talk about that. These farmers may well be representative. They may well be willing to work to preserve bio-diversity as part of their operations. But no one wants to work with them to do that. There is absolutely NO consideration of the consequences when the Government dictates what they can and cannot do. Let’s face it - most of those making the decisions are political lackeys, not genuinely concerned servants of the public. (I know. I have worked there. I wouldn’t mind a dollar for every time I put up some well reasoned advice and got told “The Minister doesn’t want to hear that.” Yep, only tell the Minister what he wants to hear. And the public gets told what the Minister wants to hear.)
You can be assured that the Government does not give two hoots about bio-diversity except as a lever to achieve other aim. I will give you an example (don’t ask for the reference, I don’t work in that area any more). There was a little bird - one of the bristle birds I think - that was critically endangered. Government officers caught six or seven to study. Having completed their study they concluded that the bird was now probably extinct in the wild (in fact, that they argued that they had caught the last ones). They extrapolated from that to argue that there was probably no good habitat left for them anyway (how you would come to that conclusion I don’t know). So instead of releasing them, they gassed them.  Goodbye bristle bird. Good bye bio-diversity, deliberately at the hands of Government officers.
I am sure that a lot of the farmers commenting here (myself included) would have welcomed the opportunity to provide a safe habitat (if we were in the right region). No one was asked. The decision was just to kill the birds. Maybe that is why Australia’s biodiversity is plummeting fast.
I heard a news item recently that someone else in Government has raised the old one about not trying to conserve species which are critically endangered - that they will probably go extinct anyway.
You are right. Something does not add up. But you are only parroting propaganda if you think it is all down to people on the land.
What MOST people on the land do has changed a great deal in the last fifty years. Governments have changed to - for the worse.

Reggie says:

09:53am | 11/04/11

You’re on very shaky ground there Malleerington. I’ve been reading all this and there are two factors that keep repeating. The possessiveness of farmers and the exclamation that no-one could possibly prove them wrong. In fact, if I hear one more Greenie sleight I may have to point out how farmers are even more extreme than the Greens. ( Notice that I side-stepped the word fanatics out of sympathy for the farmer’s dilemma.)

When you talk about “the intrusion of government” it too brings a furrow to my brow as I recall that line in relation to the silly “gold standard” that put the interests of the people LAST.

The argument that went , “The Gold Standard is needed because we can’t trust governments.”

“We” apparently being someone superior to the ordinary people who elect governments to protect their interests.  (Merely a passing observation because I have more to read.)

Observant says:

07:11pm | 12/04/11

Reggie that is not the primary reason for the gold standard, or at least you haven’t really explained it sufficiently.

Gold is a natural mineral, that is of scarce quantity in the known universe (i.e. earth). You cannot print/mint gold out of thin air, like fiat money, thus the the money supply is relatively stable and thus the price mechanism is more accurate and stable. A stable price mechanism is necessary to ensure wealth creation, continual employment and output; economic calculation becomes increasing difficult under inflationary conditions, and in the long-term impossible under a inflationary-monetary system.

Additionally this ‘scarce quality’ prevents the appropriation (i.e. theft) of wealth & capital through manipulation of the money supply. It also maintains a more accurate interest rate on money (think of it as the price of savings or the price of loanable funds), ensuring a long-term supply of domestic savings for critical infrastructure and capital projects.

The Gold Standard, or any commodity backed currency, is necessary to protect the savings and wealth of a nation’s citizens. You are clearly ignorant on the history of currency and just how diabolical currency debasement is.

Debasement is usury personified and is done for a specific reason; it lines the pockets of a select few elite individuals, at the expense of the masses. Disagree if you wish, but at least don’t be ignorant on the subject next time as I’ve given you fair warning that your arguement is pitiful.

The Redman says:

04:13pm | 09/04/11

Well, that’s fantastic stuff by John Fenton, but for every Fenton, there are dozens of farmers and regional residents that want to knock down every tree, bush, shrub and grassland that stands between them and their crop and personal wealth. It seems to me that you get a far more vehement protest in cities against development of sensitive urban environments that you ever do in the country. In fact, those who attempt to defend the enviornment against regional development are pilloried as communists and greens. It’s quite clear to me that regional citizens feel they have the right to do to the land whatever they want and noone has any right to prevent them from doing so.

You can see by the discussion above regarding the clearing of land around regional residential areas in fire prone areas that once people of this mindset move into such areas, the first thing they want to do is to run a bulldozer through it so they are safe. The belief is that “I want to live here (or farm here, or mine here) so it is the obligation to the environment to evolve to suit my lifestyle, not my obligation to adapt to the environment”, and I’m sorry, I just do not agree with that.

The argument that because major cities are environmentally disastrous is a pointless one. We all know that, just as we all know that we cannot dismantle cities and scatter the population to the for winds. We also understand that what arable land there is in this country is not ever going to resemble the landscape 250 years ago. But are these any reason to continue to perpetrate the foolishness of destroying the natural environment, thinking that that is the only way to posterity?

Surely we can’t be that foolish, but given most of the comments here, including the article itself, I fear that is indeed the case.

de beers says:

05:10pm | 09/04/11

Redman, I blieve you are deliberly trying to misrepresent the focus of this article & misrepresent the intent of the farming community. The suggestion that farmers wish to” knock down every tree, bush, scrub and grassland” is ridiculous.
Farmers have been given rights on freehold title lands, if society wishes to remove a right for the greater good, that’s fine but it must not be done without compensation.

Farmer Joe says:

02:38pm | 10/04/11

@ The Redman
Why shouldn’t rural properties be made safe by maintaining fire breaks around them? Would you argue that it is better to let all fires just go wherever they want and destroy anything? Would you expect that in your suburb or unit block?
But you are getting this discussion off the track. Here we have examples of situations where people were not doing any grave damage to the environment, or were even protecting and preserving it, and somebody wants to take away their property rights because that somebody wants more. It is just outright grab to dispossess people. It should never happen in a democracy.
You ask if there is “any reason to continue to perpetrate the foolishness of destroying the natural environment, thinking that that is the only way to posterity?” (I think you meant “prosperity” but we’ll assume that was a typo.) What I would like to know is whether you have any specific examples - right now - of that kind of development going on other than as urban land development, and if so where? Because if you don’t have such examples, you are really only trying to take this topic off down a side alley. The examples John Mikkelsen has written about are a blot on civil society. I would expect any fair-minded person to express outrage. But a lot of the comments here suggest that there is no shortage of those who are only looking for somewhere to express their personal prejudices.

Reggie says:

10:37am | 11/04/11

Will this do Farmer Joe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigalow_Belt

As I recall it, the “winners” of the blocks had to invest so much in their development, they were reduced to hitch-hiking to town and back to beg for food for their kids.

Shouted the poor bedraggled bastard a beer or two more than once.

Farmer says:

09:39pm | 11/04/11

Reggie, really - what is you point with the BBN Assessment - big deal buddy - I worked on the Assessments - nice try, no cigar .

malohi says:

03:46pm | 09/04/11

You are advocating free speech when only one side is told because it is the side you like.
That is not perspective, that only encourages propaganda and “groupthink.”
I facepalm at some of the Orwell references on this site.

There is a right to print both sides.. what does that even mean?
I would agree that mainstream media has responsibility to print both sides, which was not done here (It is the punch after all, no balance required to start debate).
You seem to be upset by the previous publishing of one side rather than both but you are waving “yer freedoms” banner when the same thing is reversed??
The mind boggles.
unless you count the comments.
Good on ya! Cactus.

The Badger says:

03:08pm | 09/04/11

Are you talking about the stations along the coast that the “farmers” have been raking in millions of dollars from tourism while running token numbers of sheep or cattle? The ones whose 100 year leases are coming to an end?
You know the ones I mean, the ones that for a fee allow campers to camp where they like and destroy the natural environment. Are those the ones you are talking about?
About time the DEC got involved and took the “farmers” to task for destroying the environment.

de beers says:

03:10pm | 09/04/11

Was it in 2010 that it came out in the major Perth media outlets the gross animal violations perpetrated by the DEC?

Farmer says:

04:59pm | 09/04/11

Its about time old son, that people like you were taken to task - promoting such bullshit!
You tar all with one brush - where is your accountability - or do you just hang out on blog sites to cause trouble and insult fellow Australians.
Read the article - broaden your mind, have a beer, heck have two! Who knows what you will come up with?!

Farmer says:

09:36am | 10/04/11

Comment directly below is for BADGER not Greenpeace Victim. (forgot momentarily that the comments go in reverse on this site)

The Badger says:

10:44am | 10/04/11

I guess you don’t have to be very smart to be a hayseed farmer.
Don’t you have some clear felling to do? I hear dragging a chain between two dozers works a treat and gets rid of those pesky animal habits so they don’t come back. Then you can divert the river and take as much water as you want.  Screw everybody else downstream, it’s all about you.

Farmer says:

12:20pm | 10/04/11

The Badger
Oh you are a funny one - now answer the damn question TB (sounds a bit like a disease that needs to be eradicated for the good of the environment!)
” where is your accountability - or do you just hang out on blog sites to cause trouble and insult fellow Australians?”
Was it you that wrote you are a “farmer”? Well if you are, then it is people like YOU that need to be driven off the land and flogged to boot!
What makes you think that all the farming fraternity operate like what you have written below..
“Don’t you have some clear felling to do? I hear dragging a chain between two dozers works a treat and gets rid of those pesky animal habits so they don’t come back. Then you can divert the river and take as much water as you want.  Screw everybody else downstream, it’s all about you.”
If that is what you think farming is about, you are definitely in the wrong occupation. You have no respect for the bio-diverstiy, the environment, - all encompassing - the balance of nature and productivity, our ecosystems that help to sustain our businesses - GET OFF THE LAND you are an environmental vandal! Leave farming to farmers!

The Badger says:

01:03pm | 10/04/11

Come on farmer you can do better than that, get a few of your mates together have a few coldies and see if you can brainstorm something intelligent.
If it helps, you can go roo shootin to work out your frustration.
farmer my ass

Farmer says:

01:38pm | 10/04/11

TB
Just like i thought - full of crap - you are just a troll - full of TB, has to be the only answer for your not thinking straight, poor bugger, my sympathies for your incapacitated state old squid, and inability to answer questions…bugger. I thought you were a worthy of rational debate.

justice seeker says:

03:29pm | 10/04/11

Because Badger and others on this site think that in their not so humble opinion all farmers are environmental vandals they also seem to think that it is OK for rural landowners not to have the same rights to just laws as the rest of the population, not to have protection from abuse of process, threats and intimidation, fabrication of evidence, perjury abuse of power and non-compensation of alienated property rights.
You are up to your knees in quicksand when the only argument you have is blanket condemnation, on spurious grounds of the entire farming community.

de beers says:

04:55pm | 09/04/11

One is not more important than the other if you expand the definition of environment to include sustainable production systems and healthy soils & soil life.
To be able to manage the environment there needs to be also a strong economy. Currently there are too many National Parks suffering from a state of lack of management.

Reggie says:

01:49pm | 11/04/11

de Beers “if you expand the definition of environment to include sustainable production systems and healthy soils & soil life.

That’s what it is.

Well me-ole diamond cutter, 

Isn’t it time the greens and the farmers started talking?  To do so is to the benefit of the environment,- the farmers and their markets.  From what I read here the problem is one of political division and farmers ARE pig-headed bastards. Go on, admit it.

Although, I interpret “Farmer” to suggest they have moved as far they are going to and now they are standing their ground. I call that confrontational while some would call it intransigence. Perhaps farmers should discard that most unproductive Liberal attachment that has held them back for decades. After-all the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Sony B Goode says:

07:53pm | 09/04/11

Leftists have succeeded in expunging natural justice from the environment and family courts, turning them in welfare systems. The notion of guilty or innocent has been eliminated and the only question these courts seem to address is the degree of financial damage they can inflict on those brought before them.

What you have is people whose core ideology is revolution from within being let loose with taxpayer dollars and lawmaking abilities by deceptive means into the realm of government.

There is in reality little to separate Chavez from Gillard other than the degree of cultural destruction and prosperity retardation they are prepared to inflict during office in the name of Social Justice.

de beers says:

06:35pm | 09/04/11

In the Qld situation public servants were placed under severe pressure & time limits to draft legislation in the wake of political expedient preference deals between the Beetie & Bligh Govt’s & The Greens. Hurried desktop studies & no time to reflect on the possibility of the loss of civil rights makes for very poor laws.
Blanket legislation, one-size fits all does not reflect on the real world of highly variable eco systems.

Sony B Goode says:

07:43pm | 09/04/11

The greenies cause overlaps sufficiently with the chardonnay socialist mob that they serve as a suitable conduit in the war on prosperity. It’s not uncommon to hear geenies say that the planet can do with a few billion less people. One planet, one national park. The fact we need farms to eat escapes the hard core green’s groupthink and limited perceptions.

Make no mistakes about the intentions of greenies and lefties it is the destruction of modern social and economic systems. Think the merry pranksters et al.

Revolution in the land of Sunday roast dinners and American idol is virtually impossible, so lefties settle for the next best thing, chaos from within.

Clinton and Gore underscore the damage these people have been able to inflict on society. Clinton sowing the seed of the global financial crisis and Gore undermining the ability of manufacturing and industry to survive by branding them as polluters. Gillard is following suit by taxing breathing.

Constitutional reform is the only protection from the disingenuous means these people get elected and damage society from within. Some of the constitutional change we urgently need is introduction of a Bill of Rights, protection for property rights, a return to natural justice and presumption of innocence in the welfare systems of, er…courts of family and environment.

Public election of judiciary. Limitation of deficit budgeting and criminal penalties for willful economic damage for politicians.

One has to keep in mind that government coffers grow proportionally to gdp growth which outstrips population growth. In other words governments grow increasingly fat and wasteful with taxpayer money. Constitutional limitation on taxation based on population not gdp should be brought in to prevent never-ending stream of wasteful programs.

There will be no peace from lefties until there is widespread understanding of the fallacies they propagate and aggressive taxation is curtailed to prevent them from funding failed utopian ideas with taxpayer dollars.

Icarus says:

11:40pm | 09/04/11

Well said, Hermes, the amount of uninformed venom posted here by malignant haters like CJ Morgan and a few others is just so, so sad. Perhaps they have tried to ‘get a life’, do something for the country and their fellow man just like a multitude of farmes have struggled to do, but they have failed and that has made them so bitter and twisted. But I doubt it - I think it is just how they get their kicks. The lead article was simply setting out to paint some realistic pictures, and to bring them to the attention of people like me, a genuine inner city urbanite. What’s so wrong with that? Why do you try to make it a matter of hate, and (very obscure) ‘score settling’?
In answer to one particular diatribe above, a poster with some balance pointed to the subsidies that the car industry for example has received, right up to the present. And forgive me if I don’t even mention (oops, I am) the nonsenses going on to promote various green industries, the NBN, and to prop up counter-productive union practices which still bedevil our building and transport industries..
But of course you haters of farmers and the good that they really represent for our country don’t want a balanced discussion, do you?

John Mikkelsen says:

07:29am | 10/04/11

Maybe they prefer their cheap imported snow peas and broccoli with a dash of ecoli and their milk fortified with melamine - the stuff used in my kitchen furniture, not what I pour on my cornflakes. Quality Aussie produce for me and that includes seafood.

malohi says:

08:44am | 10/04/11

Clearly you and your witnesses do not lack objectivity…

de beers says:

09:10am | 10/04/11

malohi, why do you say that “Clearly you and your witnesses do not lack objectivity”?
Is it because that this event is so hard to believe that it could occur in a democratic nation such as Australia that values freedom & a fair go?
Or is it that you know full that these types of events did take place & you wish to discredit & intimidate these people so as the word doesn’t get out?

Fighting Spirit says:

09:29am | 10/04/11

malohi,
I assume that you have listened to the audio above, posted by Ruth Bonnett.
As only one person off the land, and living through what we have, it is a very daunting task to relive this experience.
The hope and dream of legislative reform, a sense of justice, equity and dispelling myths for ALL people of Australia is imperative.
Truth, honesty are lacking in many of our legislation, and laws - often in conflict with each other.
I do not know how many contributors on this site are old enough to remember that once there was a pride associated with having family on the land - and for the families on the land, there was a pride in having our city cousins as well.
Our family raised all of our children (nieces and nephews) with a strong belief that they led a privileged life. Family would come and holiday with us, and we in turn could holiday with them.
The result being that the next generations had a respect, an understanding of each others real life positives and negatives - where they lived.
Not listening to others “hearsay” but having first hand knowledge of real issues.
Not to judge, but to listen, learn, seek the truth.
Thank you to The Punch for allowing this article to come out.
I am terrified that there will be repercussions - but I cannot succumb to fear, there are families farming families across this great nation, who are good people, law abiding people. But they are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisal.

The Badger says:

01:05pm | 10/04/11

Oh hi BJ
If you are seeing little green people, I would suspect you are in Ireland and if you dig around, you just might find a pot of gold.
If you’re not in Ireland, then perhaps you should see a head doctor if it’s not St. Patricks day.

Lazy Les says:

10:53am | 10/04/11

When it comes to land clearing , you only have to live in regional towns or cities to see the desctruction that takes place. Two years ago I was horrified to see the bulldozers move in and begin knocking down the trees in the bush near me. I knew it was going to happen but when it did, it uspet me. It was the bird nesting season and this bush was full of wildlife. I saw them constantly and loved it. I would take walks in the bush and loved the peace and quiet except when the trail bikes took over.
First the bitumen roads and trees were planted along the streets. The crash of huge trees coming down hour after hour, day after day, was hard to listen to, and when I asked the local wildlife group, they told me they didn’t save many as they didn’t have enough time. This bulldozing has been done in stages so is still happening today.

Dead animals occasionally lie on the road, where now many houses stand, either finished or in the process of being built. Some ugly and certainly not pleasing to the eye or the environment.

Environmental supporters live in some of the homes, but say they build environmentally friendly homes. How do they justify this when they destroyed so much to build? It seems they have no issue with destroying the environment.

Farmers would never destroy so much natural habitat on their property as this. Where the houses now stand, no tree will ever rise again, no animal can live, or bird nest. At least most times, when a farmer removes trees, the chance of it returning at some point to it’s natural state is highly likely.

de beers says:

08:42am | 11/04/11

To make retrospective legislation in all areas of the law is something that should not be done lightly. In a speech to the Qld Parliament that addressed proposed retrospective amendments to the vegetation management act, opposition member Ray Hopper quoted the Qld Attorney-General, Kerry Shine who had made the following remarks -
“Under Queensland’s Legislative Standards Act it is a fundamental legislative principle that legislation should not adversely affect rights and liberties or impose obligations respectively.”
Hopper went on to say - “So here we have the Attorney-General saying that I am part of a parliament that should not introduce retrospectivity. So what do we see today? We see the introduction of retrospective legislation. What will be the repercussions of this? “
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/hansard/documents/2008.pdf/2008_02_28_WEEKLY.pdf

Reggie says:

08:53pm | 11/04/11

de Beers “To make retrospective legislation in all areas of the law is something that should not be done lightly.”

I think we can rest assured it is never lightly introduced, but if a practice can be shown to have been injurious, the policy needs to be changed.

What-ever the action, it was JUST as wrong before the change of rules but after the change it was illegal.  A change presumably for good reason and no amount of wishing it were otherwise, will help. 

““Under Queensland’s Legislative Standards Act it is a fundamental legislative principle that legislation should not adversely affect rights and liberties or impose obligations respectively.”

I ask you, how can that principle be legitimate if it is necessary to restrict a landholders “rights and liberties” if it can be shown that they have resulted in an abuse of some sort? Are you saying that the right to abuse and misuse is legislated?

Don’t misunderstand me, I am very much in support of farmers having their rights and responsibilities clarified but it will not help if they insist on having it all their own way.  Environmental concerns have shifted the goal posts for everyone.

de beers says:

05:55pm | 10/04/11

A very important point Landowner, these laws are now affecting far more people than farmers. It’s become more & more common that residental allotments & those living on the outer fringes of the major cities have also been impacted.

Farmer Joe says:

10:17pm | 10/04/11

Very well put. Landowners are being pursued with religious zeal (I chose those words carefully) by the self-righteous adherents of the “green” religion. Like most religious zealots, they have swallowed the slogans and can think no further. It is sad that this rubbish is taught to our children as “environmental protection”. I am sure that there are others waiting to jump in to refute this. But this age is no different different from any other in which preferred beliefs (religious or otherwise) were foist upon a population while scorn (and worse) was heaped on those who questioned those same beliefs (often with sound reasons for doing so).

Reggie says:

11:20am | 11/04/11

Farmer Joe “Very well put. Landowners are being pursued with religious zeal (I chose those words carefully) by the self-righteous adherents of the “green” religion.”

“Self-righteous” is a term applied by those who regard their own position as unassailable and since you have chosen your words so carefully, I would suggest that English slave-traders used the same religious zeal to justify their position.  It was only the enlightenment that brought on a reevaluation of standards and the same applies to farming. What was right yesterday is not right today because we have learned from the mistakes of the past.

The Jamaican cane-fields are still worked, just not under the old conditions that prevailed before the end of slavery.  We all have to adapt to new conditions and it is not at all surprising to find the fiercely independent rural population dragging the chain.

Farmer Joe says:

01:06pm | 11/04/11

Yes, Reggie, but the rural environment HAS changed. Don’t quite know what the English slave traders have to do with it. but you say “What was right yesterday is not right today because we have learned from the mistakes of the past.”  I don’t see your point. The majority of people on the land no longer farm or graze the way they did fifty years ago. They have learned. Those who have not learned are on the way out anyway. But we still have to contend with critics who either do not, or choose not to recognise that farming is no longer done the way it was. Those critics only deal in stereotypes - as religious zealots prefer to do because dealing with facts confronts their preferred beliefs. Attend a few farm field days and you will soon learn that things changed long ago. It is the critics who have been left brooding over the past.
Don’t get me wrong. Things will never be perfect. And that will not change no matter who is in charge.

Grumpy Leethal Codger says:

06:08pm | 10/04/11

This Badger is getting one of my heroes a bad name. Badger from Wind in the Willows was a decidedly decent old grump who didn’t mind giving the Weasel Gang “a good whacking” in the name of fair play and summary justice. I suggest from hence forth all respondents to this shallow fellow masqurading as a throughly decent Badger be only referred to as The Weasel

Rob Moore says:

09:49pm | 10/04/11

This was my exact feeling after reading through this long list.

I’m tired after working all day but since I know almost everyone in John’s posting- I feel a duty to support a debate that is rarely had from our side.

Badger, Redman and the likes- tell us what you do- you seem such experts (oh I forgot CJ too) on everything that we do.

Landowner says it right above- CO2 tax AGW - all fear campaigns to justify these green agenda’s.

Peter Spencer’s Federal Court case will sort a lot of this crap out- I suggest everyone follow his proceedings and try and support him with a few donations until a result is forth coming. All anyone anywhere is asking for is - JUST TERMS or appropriation =compensation.

Reggie says:

08:30pm | 11/04/11

Icarus may I point out that the political party that represents your interests has been in coalition with the Howard government for a near record period, during which your concerns have not been addressed. In fact most were probably been implemented during this period.

I’d suggest you not hold you’re breath expecting a satisfactory outcome from Peter Spencer’s case, unless the actions can be shown to have been unlawful. Your remedy is going to be political or negotiated.

Fighting Spirit says:

01:40pm | 11/04/11

Add Brush Tailed Rock Wallabies to that.(in areas where “they are not supposed to exist! - Killed by neglect of Govt employees!)
Add Yellow-naped Snake, (Furina barnardi) classified as “near threatened” however the area that it was KILLED in by GOVT EMPLOYEES has not been recorded there before!

John Mikkelsen says:

08:00pm | 11/04/11

Tres interestant, Rob, as the Frogs would say. Do you know they repealed their carbon tax legislation last week?

John Mikkelsen says:

08:04pm | 11/04/11

Here’s the link to what happened in France: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7507015/France-ditches-carbon-tax-as-social-protests-mount.html
“President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country’s proposed carbon tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing electoral defeat over the weekend, when his Gaulliste UMP party lost every region other than in its bastion of Alsace and the Indian Ocean island of Reunion…
The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to “damage the competitiveness of French companies”, fearing that it would be too risky for France to go it alone without the rest of the EU…”

Rob Moore says:

07:15am | 12/04/11

Australian Government
Department of Climate Change
And Energy Efficiency
Dear—————,
Thank you for your email of 17 December 2100 to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the Hon Greg Combet AM MP, concerning the Green Climate Fund.
The Minister has asked that I respond on his behalf.
The December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Cancun (COP 16) resulted in a balanced package of decisions, of which the decision to establish the Green Climate Fund was an important part. These decisions (the Cancun Agreements) covered the key elements of climate change, including mitigation action and transparency measures by developed and developing countries, and progress on finance, markets, clean technology, forests and adaption.
The Cancun Agreements set a global goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. They anchor the pledges of developed and developing countries to reduce or limit the growth in their greenhouse gas emissions. And they also established a process to better understand these pledges and begin to build a more durable mitigation architecture.
The Cancun Agreements build on the work of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference held in December 2009 and bring key elements of the Copenhagen Accord into the negotiations under the UNFCCC. This includes the commitment made in Copenhagen to mobilise joint international climate change finance of US$100 billion per annum by 2020, in the context of meaningful and transparent mitigation action by developing countries. Achieving this scale of finance is critical to laying the foundation to help drive the strong mitigation action needed to meet the goal of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius or below. It is also important for providing assistance to those countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
In Cancun, Minister Combet was invited by the President of COP 16 to chair the high level negotiations on climate change finance, along with his Ministerial counterpart from Bangladesh. One of the main outcomes of these negotiations was agreement to establish the new Green Climate Fund. No country expressed specific objectives to the establishment of the Green Climate Fund. Indeed, countries saw it as a crucial element of the overall package of decisions agreed at COP 16. With 193 of 194 countries supporting the package of decisions taht included establishment of the Green Climate Fund, and only one country (Bolivia) raising concerns, the package was adopted by COP 16 and will serve the basis for future work.
At COP 16, Australia worked actively with other countries to agree on the process for the design of the new fund. This will occur during 2011, through the creation of a Transnational Committee. The Transnational Committee will have 40 members, with 15 members from developed countries and 25 members from developing countries. It will meet for the first time in March 2011.

BLOODY TERRIFYING- is all I can say- he didn’t mention the 2% of GDP each and every year- yes this FW has already signed it and that will mean a hand over of $600 Million this year to his Bangladeshie buddy!

As I type this I hear on the news -Penny Wong is warning of a very tough budget with no more money for medical research???????>?

Landowners should stop producing for 3 months and shut these bastards down and let them find a few empty shelves.

Farmer says:

01:28pm | 13/04/11

Interesting “Disgusted” particularly this, “The discussion on this website is unhelpful and divisive! Start offering some positive win win solutions rather than tearing each other’s opinions apart!”
This is exactly how farmers “feel”. For DECADES we have sought to “reason” with and share knowledge with other “stakeholders” (total BS here - we own our land!) to work together with all and use information to the betterment of OUR environment on our land with our bio-diversity and business’s.
However, every single time farmers are penalized - let me clarify.
The hands on practical knowledge that we who live and work on the land give to bureaucrats is nearly always used against farmers in an unproductive manner with implementation of new legislation / laws to further lock up landowners private property, with devastating effects on not only the bio-diversity and unique ecosystems, but on our business’s as well.
So what would you propose now? Will the extreme green agenda finally take responsibility for their devastating effects on the legislation and laws that they have pushed for, that are killing OUR privately owned eco-systems and all that encompasses?
I think that landowners should be able to sue the government for the demise of well balanced, all encompassing properties - legislation has a LOT to answer for!

Rob Moore says:

08:17pm | 14/04/11

Here’s a win win situation- Force a general election on this ridiculous CO2 Tax.Combet, Gillard and all the airheaded incompetants need to read this-

At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media-generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”——- Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology said this: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What’s more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don’t worry, we’re safe now, that was the nineties/
, we’re headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years—give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth’s temperature rise, not lead it.
the carbon tax is a huge con.

Farmer says:

10:18am | 14/04/11

Good post de beers.
I had actually read that ABARE report - the figures that were produced in it were staggering. The loss of production, costs to local economy at a base level, and subsequent flow on costing mind boggling.
I assume that the speech you are referring to is that of Ashley McKay’s. It was sent to me a number of months ago.
A very powerful speech, backed up with reference’s and names. There is no reason to assume what McKay states is untrue, as he methodically has pinpointed many irregularities, and wrong doing blatantly by many government officials and employees. Disgusting!

John Mikkelsen says:

12:25pm | 14/04/11

In another article on The Drum I said PRA has supported many facing similar problems “such as Ashley McKay, a grazier from south west Queensland who has become almost a folklore hero from his landmark case. After seven court appearances in six years and the expenditure of half a million dollars, he finally had his case thrown out after crown witnesses provided inconsistent evidence”.  http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45804.html  I believe his case had many of the hallmarks of over zealousness discussed here.