Peter-

That sucks. I feel for you. I grew up in the country, and i know that farming can be a pretty thankless ordeal sometimes, and that un-nuanced government regulation can make it a lot worse. You are obviously a pretty perceptive guy- you understand that your future livelihood depends on respecting your animals, the land and the environment, that those things go hand in hand. But let me ask you this- Do you think that that's true for the majority of farmers?

I don't. For a case study in farmer greed and environmental indifference check out the Victorian Alpine graziers, kicking up a stink because they'll no longer be getting a free ride to destroy the Alpine National Park. Unfortunately, in the national dialogue between farmers and environmentalists, jerks like that are too loud, while people like yourself are too loud. Governments can't legislate for the exception, and regulations that might be grossly unfair on you may well be perfectly justified for others.

I feel for you, but I'm not convinced that you're a representative Australian farmer.

Peter
No doubt KRS is a farmer and understands the land Ah?Peter I FEEL FOR YOU and good for you with all you have been through to mention the cruel intensive farming. Not only do i feel for you i would like to take you on board my Company. Its a pleasure to meet you.
Together we will get this country back on its feet. We NEED MEN like you. The farmers cared for the land and bush for many years. To be fair Peter its true they cut too many trees down. We BOTH know that. However they also controlled the bush fires and the weeds with their stock. please See re free range share farms and back to the old days
www.halakindmeats.com

The tale of troubles shared by Mr Spence is all too commonly heard Australia wide. I am aware of many similar stories where a series of decisions made by Governments have resulted, at best in sub optimal outcomes or at worst perverse outcomes.

Governments have responded to environmental issues in of two ways, stop all activity or heavily regulate the activity so the cost and time required to meet the regulations means it is very difficult to continue to undertake that activity.

But why has this happened? I believe there are a number of reasons why Governments action has created the situation Mr Spence described. First, the underlying science is not fully understood. Too often a piece of valuable scientific work is taken out of context or more usually the work is taken as being definitive and is declared as providing the final definitive answer. Policy makers ignore nuances and assumptions associated with the work. The whole situation is becomes further complicated because it is difficult to find funds to continue research in these areas once the science is declared by the policy makers to be definitive and final.

Second, there has been a failure in the development of other approaches, particularly the idea that landowners should be good land managers and would need little or regulation.

By and large, the Government’s attempts to support the good land managers have failed. That failure is then the basis for the argument that land managers need to be heavily regulated.

Third, Governments fail to appreciate that no matter what the land tenure, the land still has to be managed. It is naïve to believe that a parcel of land can be declared a reserve and all is well. In general, the more restrictive the land use, the more difficult the management.

In the final analysis, it is easier to regulate than to manage. It is easier to say no than to say yes. It is easy to say no and pass the cost and risk to someone else than to say yes and bear a share of the cost and risks.

To KRS. I take it your no longer in the counrty. Have you noticed the country abattoirs all closing? Ever wondered why?The jobs that goes with one sheep> involves the wool off its back and those jobs, then the hides and tanniers and those jobs .Trucking , meat ,bone rooms electrians plumbers to mention a few. Pluss animals need to be free range not locked up in the mostly appauling conditions out of the publics eye. What is more important? Free range animals and jobs for Australians with animals slaughtered as close as possible [or a few plants.?? Dont you know thats part of the Governments deals to encourage live exports. Why would they do that? You would have to ask Alaxanda Downer and Vaile that but i would say its something to do with the trade dollar and donations back to their party from the evil bastards taking Australian jobs and creating increditable suffering that is totally unnessary to Australian Animals . The Greens do not support live exports i know but the carry on about free range and running some cattle where they have run for hundreds of years is too much.You complain about a few plants in front of that. Get over it. Tourism and jobs for Ausies is what we need out there and plenty of it.Farmers are very trusting and totally naive of our cruel Goverments ways. Its time to form another party KRS one made up of you guys and us. Something tells me if we leave the Goverment out things will go a lot better. We work direct with overeas contacts There is no law against that>>> YET http://www.halakindmeats.com/aussiehero.html
please read about what farmers know.kRS peter is clearly one of those farmers.

Wendy-

The Alpine graziers were a convenient target, but perhaps not the best one. I'm still not convinced that I should feel any sympathy for them, but I agree with you that modern, so-called 'Green Revolution' intensive farming techniques are a greater threat, and that the type of operations you and Peter are running (free-range, environmentally friendly) are the way things need to go. But will operations like yourselves and Peters ever be anything more than a very minor slice of the Australian farming pie? It would be nice, but I doubt it.

For the record, I grew up on a small hobby farm, but am no longer there. All our beasts were free-range, fully organic and butchered humanely on site. Couldn't agree more about the live exports, but just out of interest, aren't most live exports for halal purposes? How do you guys get around that?

Where there is bleeting, there is another poor old farmer, down on his luck, overregulated, can't make any money, why stay, why not sell up and move to civilisation? Surely with 10 years of National Party in Government, all your "red tape" woes should be gone, unless......the red tape is needed after all. They reckon workers whinge, and we do with good reason, but try as we may, we will never come close to the poor old farmer, drought relief, flood relief, taxation relief, oh poor us, the farming community...

[Deleted for use of profanity.]

Peter.

I think you summed it up when you said."Unfortunately, I was unable to farm it for some time so extensive regrowth occurred" and in your blog "I formed Saarahnlee in 1980 from four separate properties I bought over time." sounds like you made an incorrect business decision.

If you had been able to farm the land when you bought it would the extensive regrowth not have happened? Or did you turn it into a marginal farm by neglect?

You state that it was left unfarmed for 10 years in the RN interview you gave on this issue. Surely bad land management.

If you had cleared the land in 1980 you would not have had any trouble.

If someone in manufacturing, retailing, or small business makes a bad decision it cost them money farmers are no different.

A few things to note:

1. This is not the fault of the National Party, as these regulations are placed down by the NSW state government, who continue to hold seats in Sydney due to the Greens preferences attracted by the policies which have put thousands of farmers like Peter Spencer in difficulty. The National Party in New South Wales wants to tear up these laws, and so they should. Hopefully their support for recycling water over de-salination in Sydney might garnish enough preferences for the Coalition to allow this to happen. Under Labor, NSW has meant Newcastle-Sydney-Woolongong.

2. Alpine grazing is not a problem. Farmers already practice pest-control and maintanance of the Alpine forests as they graze their cattle there: they are the best carers for it that we could have, and should have been encouraged to futher engage in management of those lands, rather than booted off them for a few sections of muddied stream. Instead of building some low walk-ways for the cattle over some rivers, and giving farmers encouragement to shoot pests and clear junk as they move through, we are going to pay millions to rangers who occasionally will visit.

3. Property rights are key here. It is in the intrests of farmers to practice sustainably, and education and assistance to move towards more sustainable practices are always good, such as the assistance given to those introducing drip-irrigation. The simpletons who thought that we should just plant more and more trees are those that don't understand how to make a farm viable, and how trees impact on an environment: the release greenhouse gasses and take all the water. It is the regrowth that burns easiest, rather than the old-growth. How to maintain a balance of trees, cropping and waterways is something which men such as Peter Andrews have lead the way in, in practices such as natural sequestration. Having this knowledge given to farmers, to allow them to fully utilise their property rights, is the best way to secure our future.

4. Tourism is not enough, and is not viable for all areas. Whilst historic towns and great landscapes shall always get tourists, individual farms covered with regrowth, which look like any other bit of Australia, have no comparative advantage to gain tourists. Agriculture delivers more money to rural areas than tourism ever will. What's more, most people in cities work jobs that depend upon our agriculture for inexpensive foods, and so we should support them thus.

5. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Spencer did not make a bad decision. I have friends whose families have properties in southern New South Wales, all very viable and profitable. One cannot predict the draconian regulation that Labor will produce, it often seems so very arbitrary.

6. Nobody has mentioned that stock are being taken by wild animals which are allowed to breed in these new untouched areas of bush. I feel this plan is an underhand way of driving farmers off their land, and then taking the land for national parks... which will be burnt down next summer. What good is a free-range sheep, if it is mauled by a wild beast in a very painful death? Answer me that, Greenies.

Peter, I sympathise with your plight. How many times do we witness an act bearing only a passing resemblance to the intent of the original legislation? The passing of any act goes through the torture of bureaucracy to fine tune all the thousands of little details and by-laws to actually make it workable (well…workable to the satisfaction of the bureaucrats anyway…Yesss, Minister…)

In the case of the statutes that affect your situation, I am sure there were many on the land, as well as environmentalists that wholeheartedly agreed in the need for conservation type legislation. A member for Parliament would have sanctimoniously tabled the legislation in an environment completely removed from the practicalities of its application.

In time, preservation of the environment becomes persecution by a hundred little tin pot Hitlers to whom the legislation is God’s cloak of invincibility. Tales of hardship and pain are nothing more than spurious lies to circumvent their reign and undermine their precious cloak. The fact that generations of work and planning have to be sacrificed are expected and acceptable casualties, so words of discontent and hardship are dismissed without serious consideration.

People that know nothing of the system begin to treat those affected by the legislation as nothing more than undeserving complainants whose demise is a welcome diversion. That they know absolutely nothing of farm life does not seem to detract from their overwhelming knowledge of you as parasites on the system.

Good luck, Peter.

War on farmers? The simple fact remains, we farm too much land in this country and much of it is too small to support the efficiency measures enjoyed by the larger operations. Once, 40 per cent of the population, now just 4 but some hang on against the tide.

Hey who else gets the levels of assistance the rural sector gets?

Drought assistance. Every few years there are severe droughts in this country, why should I subsidise the farmers reluctance to put away a bit in reserve during the good years? If you cant, sell out to your neighbour.

Income averaging. Good one. My income goes up and down and I don’t have access to it. Don’t forget the family trusts – that sacred cow that allows income to be distributed through the family.

Other assistance. Even the sugar industry gets its hand outs like that one to promote rationalisation (what an oxymoron, to pay for rationalisation which requires people to sell out). Alcohol for petroleum, will cost Australians $100million per year and should be seen as a disguised form of assistance.

The faming community has a mendicant mind set and while I feel sorry for the thousands like Peter, the reality is that you have the land and if you cant manage it, find it too expensive, don’t like the cost of communications, education, or medicine ,then get out. Sorry mate – the rest of the country has to work with what they have. At some time, my kids will have to pay for the excessive farming, notably salinated soils, I call for a halt to stop the rot in our country as difficult it will be for the Coalition and its marginal and gerrymandered seats.

Australia stands for a fair go. We paid the price for the aboriginals, now let’s do it with the farming sector and move on. Too much damage is being done to the land and we have to stop the rot. There is no “War on Farmers” – it is a slow acknowledgement of the damage.

Peter.

Why do you have the gall to write about your problems, as I tend to do I have researched the issue and your emotive piece hides the truth as you well know.

Did you have a spot of bother in PNG in 1983?

Spencer bought his property in the 1980s. It included about 4000 hectares of lightly wooded grazing land that he could not begin to farm for more than a decade, in which time saplings grew all over it.

If you choose to farm in marginal land (e.g. nothing will grow for 6 months because of the cold) or are refused exceptional circumstances funding from a Coalition Federal Govt. because your farm is not viable don’t blame Green Fascism.

You seem to be very good at manipulating the media and getting publicity for yourself.

Maybe you should look at “shedding” for your flock if you are happy to loose 100 in a special pen so they can be eaten by feral dogs or the flyblown sheep dead a week after being docked. (My stepfather would have shot his shepherd for that).

Maybe you should spend more time farming and less complaining. You are not in a war, you are playing at farming. The Monaro has always been a tough place, looks like nothing has changed.

In ending I would delete the bit on your blog about shooting and wounding a cormorant, then leaving it injured hiding in the reeds, they are a protected species in NSW.

Come on Peter stop blaming others for problems of your own making.

Peter I think you're spot on re tree legislation.

Here in SA we're not allowed to cut down any tree that's considered 'Heritage'. When I enquired about what is 'heritage' I was told - "If the tree is big enough to hug, then it's a heritage tree"! Unbelievable.

And to those who are willing to shoot arrows at Peter, I'd like to see how you all fare in the tough country of Eden-Monaro. I doubt that many of you could even cope with one day of farm life.

I think the greens and their mates in the ALP have indeed declared war on farmers in Australia. Whilst it might be nice to have open cages for chickens, I'm sure it must cost a fortune - and the farmer is between a rock and a hard place - he must put his prices up but then lose out to other producers still using old methods of intensive farming.

Good on you Peter - keep on fighting the idiocy of the green march through our primary industries.

Peter, of course you have to go, the greenies, & the lefties hate the idea that someone may do something productive, & a city, either Sydney or Melbourne, from where you are, are going to want your water.
Of course we can't admit it, but we have ways of making it happen, & you thought those laws were badly written by accident.
About 10 years ago I was invited to be a community representative on the WAMP for our local river. Under the water resources section of the Dept of Primary Industries, we were going to look after our river.
With a couple of greenie reps, a dozen producer reps, & a couple of blokes from water resources, we were getting our river, & our usage in order. With a spirit of coperation, we were going to have a healthy river, & productive farms.
Then the Dept of Natural Resources took over DPI, & it all started to go wrong.
We got a pile of "B" grade environmental science graduates, from a "D" grade university showing up, representating all sorts of departments, & we discovered that the invertebrates in the sand, were much more important than agriculture.
We got consultants reports, which were rehashes of the one for the Murry, & water quality reports, for the river, after it had reached surburbia, & wild life reports. It was all so much useless garbage.
After a few years, it became obvious, they wanted our water for Brisbane.
At our last meeting there were 68 people. Only 8 were local people, the rest were all public servants.
When it comes to a contest between justice for country people, & metropolitan water, & votes, its no contest.
Watch out Maryborough, I think you still have some water to be stolen, & pumped to Brisbane.

There are some reasonable posts here, but most missed the point and stuck to their narrow perspectives. I know the Monaro and Shannon flats. Peter can't see the forest for the trees, so fails the first test of sensibility. The land is marginal, thats why it was for sale, it couldn't support feral animals (cows and Sheep).

This country supports a certain kind of life, not animals that don't suit it. If Peter had half a brain, he would be happy his place re-vegetated to an extent. If he were to farm native animals, his problems would be solved. Instead he persists with ferals that destroy the stability of the environment. Farming kangaroos, only requires good fencing and quality control. No clearing, enhanced naturally occurring grass lands, would provide an abundance of food without detriment to anything. Peter could to sit back and watch his money come in and his land regenerate. A win win situation.

No more drenching, anti biotics, feed lots, chemically poisoned land and water ways.

Before you all fall out of your trees, I'm don't eat animal meat. If I did it would be native meats as they are in harmony with the land and tasty, unlike introduced rubbish. When I did eat meat, I preferred roo, as it is a lovely lean tender meat, that doesn't have the toxic residues of introduced meats.

The problem seems to be that people find it shocking to eat our national emblem, but are happy to gorge themselves on animals that have been tortured in so many ways, just for their Macdonald's poisons.

If your going to have a meat industry, why not use the best form there is. It would triple our export markets, being a unique product found nowhere else in the world.

But that won't happen, its to simple and easy to do. We can't have that can we, no we must stick to our debauched practices and everyone continue to suffer. Just So the obese of the world can continue to smell as they do.

I am a farmer in what was once known as the 'dress circle of NSW'. On 32 kms of road, av property size 1,200 acres, only 2 farms have young ones to take over. The rest are older farmers literally wearing down.

30 years ago each farm supported 2 families. Now ALL have outside income. None can make viable income from this acreage and none can therefore afford to expand. Drought loans are exceptionally hard to get and must be paid back. Hope all the city people are aware of that.

Any other discounts on things we receive - as does every business after all - are eaten up by the regulated levies and taxes instituted by government bodies. And to get an increase in our returns brings howls from the public who love to buy more and more possessions, but scream if basic foods get too dear.

So, we get to the point where we sell up and move on. Well, due to our proximity to Sydney, land is becoming more expensive, so our major buyers are high income earners looking for their 'tree change'.

So what does our government do?

Puts a minimum restriction on farm development of 400 ha minimum farm size before you can erect a house and/or start a new farming development. In this shire, less than 10% of farms reach that size.

Currently, all of the centre of NSW is pinned to a farm size that does not allow for growth in any direction. Unless you are fortunate enough to be a Packer and can afford to buy more land, you can go no where.

So my city friends - the days of the cockie carting hay around in the back of his mercedes are long, long gone. We have city friends who have visited over the 30 years, we have all worked as hard as each other, and their asset - their Sydney house - is as valuable as our large acreage, plus they have a life outside their work. Once they envied our life - now they see the reality of it.

Steve, specifically, you question the truth of the article commencing with a remark about PNG.

PNG has been a big part of my life as is the study of the plight of the 3rd and 4th world generally. It is something I am passionately involved in. As a publisher once said about me - Peter is on a crusade regarding these issues.

I have an attic as big as the average bedroom - off my study, with all my PNG papers, of over 30 years. From when I was running my own company, and as Press Secretary, Chief Office Administrator, and Deputy Chief of Staff to a very capable Prime Minister. I, my self, have researched and written prolifically, generally on the subject of Governance and Law and Order in emerging nations. Some authorities speak very highly of this work. It is controversial.

The Dean of Humanities at Bond Paul Wilson say of my work “ I can categorically state that I find your NLOP report the most comprehensive and well planned document I have yet come across.”

My approach to the farm was also researched. The farm is a business with a very detailed business plan put together by one of Australia leading Agri business consultants David Sackett of Holmes Sackett. All the animals are bar coded and managed through bar code reader with lap top computer in the yards.

New England Uni Genetics Div do all the genetics - Top Stud does the soft ware.
The property is supposed to be, because of altitude, climate and types of native grasses, one of the best sites in the world for breeding Ultra fine Saxon sheep.

Two years ago we took out the top 2 positions out of 5 in the finest bales – last year we took out the top 4 out of 5. As the flock started out at only 300 ewes, developing pasture and the necessary re-clearing was not pressing and could be done to suit annually.

More next comment out of space.

Steve, you made a comment about the lightly wooded grazing land. That is true but as you go on - regarding the sapling growth, you should realise this is because the land is not marginal -32/34 inch rain pa, growth into forests here is prolific the type of animal grazing impacts on this as well. See may paper on Namadgi on my blog. A recent paper produced by UNE placed in the Farming Institute Quarterly - quotes this Namadgi paper.

You mentioned the Monaro being hard. Well that is true to a point although Australia has places more severe then this - just in other ways. However you should understand “Saarahnlee” is not typical Monaro we are higher and have almost twice the rain fall.

At Parks, the drought summit - I said to him the Minister, give us farmers back our land and forget the subsidy.

How, I asked him, could one manage our livestock, in a drought, if we cannot access our land?

Steve, the Constitution is clear. Where the State takes your property they must compensate. But equally so, I believe, if regulation is such that it denies the use of your land it is equal proportionally to acquisition.

An Example could be the State my ask you to put in to your home a smoke detector, or insulation, or safety screens on your glass window, BUT you can still use your home. If, on the other hand, the State takes 90 of your house and turns it into the town library, leaving you with one bedroom, with you being told - be grateful. Then in addition the bank tells you your loan is called up - as it is now worth only 10% /20% of its value. Would you not feel unjustly treated?

You must admit Steve it is my land whether it be desert or swamp, hill or flat if it is marginal or gilt edge and if I develop it today, tomorrow, or intergenerationally that really is my business - as is your house.

More tomorrow out of space.

SuziQ, I have never been a farmer but it is clear that the reality of life on the land, and its increasing importance to Australia are issues left unaddressed by most people that are insulated by city lifestyles. The supermarkets are always stocked so what's the problem?

Even just a cursory glance at a map of Australia shows a brown land encompassed by a narrow green ring. At an accelerating rate, we see acres and acres of beautiful soil being buried under brick and tile. No one wants to live in marginal country yet they are more than willing to criticise those that have a go at doing so.

There will come a time, not in our generation perhaps but not too far away, when the marginal land is all that we will have to rely on because successive governments refuse to admit that the carrying capacity of this country has already been reached. Just over twenty million people and we are already used to water restrictions and green blue algae. We perpetuate wetland farming in cotton and rice in the second driest continent on earth and our major arteries are becoming little more than puddles. What happened to just plain common sense? Apologies for the diversion from topic but it is a particular interest of mine and, I am sure, many others.

Anyway SuziQ, I know of people that have just walked away from all that they, and their parents before them, worked for simply because the hardships became so much greater than any possibility of return. Suicide in the bush is much more prevalent that people in the city would be aware of when they shoot their slings and arrows about Mercedes Benz, new dresses and generous welfare payments. Or perhaps they are aware of it but just don’t care which makes their indictments all the more reprehensible. The farm is not only a job but a way of life and any one of us would fight to protect our way of life regardless of the critical disregard put forth by too many of your fellow Australians.

Wendy L

I heard a WA farmer was selling Australian halal sheepmeat killed to a malysian muslim market, if this is indeed true, its a good thing both in animal welfare (no boat rides and within the Aussie higher welfare standerds)and the farming industry (jobs).

Most Australian export lamb is killed in halal abbatoirs. Some lefties would be surprised to learn that many rural towns have high muslim populations as abbatoir work brings them into town. However, some middle eastern countries (like Kuwait) simply will not accept any other arrangement than exporting the sheep live and slaughtering them locally.

So farmers have a choice - they can either sell the sheep (most sheep sold as live exports are merinos that are too old to produce decent wool) as live exports or they can shoot them. Greenies would prefer they are shot obviously.

Yeh Yobbo

i think its about $50 a head on the boats n yeh farmers do really need money.
Maybe sell the old mutton to the large pet food industry or snags or whatever.

Whats the harm in trying to sell to malaysia instead of kuwait? they all eat halal. The meat workers union have sided against live export

why doesnt animals rights lobby for subs for farmers who try to sell Aussie killed to malaysia or sell their old mutton here in Oz etc

Cruelty free is a big market in the West as well.

if u forget idealism as a policy and treat it as a product

ie the wealthy body shops low grade(trust me im female, they arnt much good) cosmetics selling on a massive scale purely on the idealism of un-tested on animals cruelty free.

neither side will dissapear farmign or animal rights, a lil common sense and practicality could help both maybe not perfectly.

There could be payoffs on both sides, ie keeping PETA of the back of industry here, and using idealism for the benifit of animals and industry. neither side is gettign what it needs now as it is, and i reckon these kinda thoughts are at least worth exporing.

am i im cursed? ..... im a right wing animal righter lol

Peter.

I have no issue with your abilities as an author, press secretary or public servant. I do have issues with your buying 4 separate parcels of land, leaving them for 10-15 years, causing the regrowth, and then complaining when your inaction caused you a problem. You have not commented on this.

To move on to your damming of a creek, not building two dams, on Rock Hut Creek.. Do you care to answer the following questions raised in NSW Parliament?

“What is his position on the operation of the private fishing generated by damming waters of the Murrumbidgee, called Rock Hut Creek, a tributary of the Murrumbidgee River?
Has there been an approval for dams to be constructed at Rock Hut Creek?
If so, when and by whom?
Where were the fish stocks sourced from?
Is fishing being permitted in the closed season from dams at Rock Hut Creek?
If so, why?
What is the NSW Fisheries position on access for New South Wales anglers in that area?”

Come on admit it, you had an emotional dream of a “Tree Change” to The Monaro, you were not a farmer but had the funds through your hard work to buy four farms and combine them into your dream.

Your abilities as a spin doctor are not being questioned. I am questioning the facts you presented in your article. A bit fuzzy around the edges I am afraid

Peter

Thank your for your very moving article. It sent shivers down my spine. Brought back flooding memories of my Grandfather's farming days. Up and at it at 4am, seven days per week for a lifetime.

To the negative posters: let's cut off assistance to all farmers, let's get them to move to Sydney or Melbourne. Mmm, what country will we buy our meat, fruit and veges from? Mmm, yeah China would be a good option, with the soil fouled with human faeces. Sounds yummy eh?

I wish you and your family all of the very best Peter - and you too, SuziQ.

Cheers
Kay

Our constitutional rights to our land, whether rural or housing, were established through the Magna Carta, under "Fee Simple" title - what is now Freehold title.

Quote: Fee Simple Absolute is historically and legally the most complete form of property ownership...The FSA owner holds the right to .....Use the land for whatever purpose the owner sees fit.........exclusive possession of the land. Unquote.

Webster Legal Dict: "FS is the highest form of land ownership avalable. Third party interference is prohibited to a property held in FS title."

Only the Crown has a final authority over this right - and that does not include Local Council or State Gov't. In fact, rates have been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court, because only Fed go'vt can levy a tax, and rates have been deemed a tax!

In this shire, the rate-payers are fighting a battle that is about to go to State investigation, because we are sick of any form of go'vt eroding our 'in perpetua' rights.

So, all this governmental interference is both a bluff and illegal. They are presuming on our right with our own land.

How do you think the Hutt River Province came into being? What was the premise of "The Castle"? Fee Simple title.

Have a look at your deeds and do a www search on Fee Simple. Learn your true rights and stand up for them.

“Preservation of the environment becomes persecution by a hundred little tin pot Hitlers to whom the legislation is God’s cloak of invincibility. Tales of hardship and pain are nothing more than spurious lies to circumvent their reign and undermine their precious cloak. The fact that generations of work and planning have to be sacrificed are expected and acceptable casualties, so words of discontent and hardship are dismissed without serious consideration.”, writes Craig Blanch.

Blimey Moses! What hope have we got if a significant portion of the population thinks like this (or fails to think and just jumps to the ludicrous extreme like this).

Craig, presumably you don’t advocate completely open slather for farmers to do just exactly what they want. But….any efforts towards mitigating this open slather are ‘tin pot Hitler’ activities. What would you have us do?

Every sort of regulation, except perhaps for the most simple type, has an element of inequality about it. That is just unavoidable.

If regulations are going to work, then they need to be enforced. But wait, enforcers are tin-pot Hitlers! But without them, the regulations are meaningless… and the farmers and the fishers and the miners and land developers and the rest, will just do whatever they please, to our collective rapid detriment.

Come on, if you really want to blame people for putting us in situations that require a high degree of regulation, then look at those who knowingly exploited the land and other resources and the past governments that allowed them to do it. Don’t denounce current efforts to deal with these issues. You can pick at the details, but give them credence for regulating activities that have shown to be in need regulation. Vegetation management is one of the big ones

Farmers in the US and Europe get enormous subsidies and farmers here are asked to compete with third world poverty.No wonder the National Party are considered a spent force.They have betrayed their own constsituency.

The Liberals suck up to multi-Nationals and feign concern for small business that is again required to compete with third world poverty with Govt and legal stupidity suffocating them.

It is time for a small business movement that includes farmers,small contractors,retailers and anyone who believes in the Australian ideal of the individual being able to rise from poverty to wealth.

Dumping oranges from Brazil or used "soaps" from the US does not give our industries a chance.How about some fair play and a real level playing field?

SuziQ.

Our constitution has little to do with the Magna Carta it does have a lot to do with a British Act of Parliament.

Do you really want a Magna Carta Fee Simple title where you could not sell your land?

Sorry the Crown does include State Governments, haven’t you noticed the Governor opening fetes lately; the governor is the Queens representative in NSW.

I think you are getting your facts a bit muddled, excises have been deemed illegal for states to impose by the High Court. (not taxes) Only the Federal Govt. can impose an excise. Of course rates are a tax but there is nothing illegal about them.

OK so now that the state govt. is “The Crown” they have final authority over your land as you have admitted.

I understand your annoyance at Govt interference but it happens if you have 400sq meters or 14,000 acres.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion anyone should be able to anything they like on their land, so I think I will set up a toxic waste dump, store millions of old tyres, grow GM canola and build a jet boat racing complex and wait to call the Govt’s bluff.

Ludwig, expressing my opinion would be a thought process, I would imagine. The ‘tin-pot Hitler’ scenario was, as you rightly say, an example taken to the extreme of generalisation. I agree that environmental laws are required if sustainability has any hope of success. It would be completely irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

What I was alluding to is the effect of the application of many laws regardless of their intent. Many posters, on this forum and others, are quick to demonise the farming community with little concession to the plight that they find themselves in because the rules are continually changing.

The farming community does have cases to answer in land management in certain areas. Cotton and rice being my personal bugbears. Then again, every consumer in this country has a place in the hierarchy of fault if that is purely what this thread is about. Blame does not create sustainability, only division.

I can only imagine that you have not come up against the bureaucratic brick wall that is the face of public accountability. They are not in every office of every department but if you imagine a world devoid of very tiny people with inordinate amounts of power then you have a vivid imagination indeed. I hope you never have the misfortune of dealing with someone whose coffee is more important that your problems.

I could, I guess, just hop on the farmer crucifixion bandwagon to validate my thought processes but independence of thought is a much-cherished right of mine.

Now that we have had our verbal spar, perhaps we can recognize that there are more instances of common ground than not. The environment is in need of protection and an empathetic approach to everyone’s position would be a reasonable point of departure for a comprehensive solution

Steve Madden

Fee Simple Title states we can do exactly whatever we want with our land, including sell, give away, donate, pass to heirs, etc.

Habeus Corpus Act 1640 states Queen and Privies (meaning all who work and govern under her name) shall have no jurisdiction over any mans Estate, outside of war and without recourse to a jury of your peers.

This became Aust law in 1900 by Sect 118 Aust Constitution, is current and protected by Aust Constitution Sect 128, 106-109.

Referendum in 1988 REFUSED to recognize Local Council as a gov’t entity. All Ref results are automatically law. Therefore they rule only through State Gov’t support.

Prior to GST, Fed Gov’t deemed rates a tax. Also High Court stated “State Gov’t cannot raise ANY TAX”

Taxation is the exclusive power of the Fed Gov’t.

Research Davis v Port Stephens Council. This man has refused to pay rates, and the court case has been held over (as of Nov 2004) for a fourth mention date. The court MUST find in favour of council because of the potential resulting mess, however CANNOT decide against Davis because of his fee simple property title, the Uniform Commercial Code ruling HCA/88 and the Fed Referendum 1988. Therefore this will probably never come to court.

No third party can levy an account (which this illegal tax of rates becomes) without you having entered into an agreement with that third party. You cannot involuntarily incur a debt against your property without your agreement. Did you agree with your rates, or did you just pay them?

As to the comment re toxic waste, tyre dumps, etc. Yes, by the right you hold under your Fee Simple title, you can do all of the above. However, I would hold that a humanitarian attitude to preserve the rights of your neighbours comes into play here. Not sure about the legalities though.

A thought to ponder – “The power to tax is the power to destroy. The one who has the power to tax will eventually own all property”. Not sure where that came from, but very relevant.

Thankyou Craig. A very good response.

We do indeed share predominantly common ground. But I disagree with the notion that farmers are generally very poorly thought of and that there is a “farmer crucifixion bandwagon”.

As for bureaucrats thinking their “coffee is more important than their (farmers’) problems”: I can assure you that from the ‘bureaucrats’ perspective, there is a very high regard for farmers, graziers and indeed all rural people who are affected by the legislation. I have been involved with this business in Queensland since the Vegetation Management Act was introduced in 2000. As one who has a great deal to do directly with landholders and vegetation management officers throughout north and central Qld, I can assure you that there is a very high regard for farmers, graziers and indeed all rural people who are affected by the legislation. This is reflected in feedback from landholders, regardless of whether they get what they want or not.

We need to be very careful about this schism between landholders and bureaucrats, as with many other simmering divisions in our society. Let’s recognise its presence, but not overstate it and hence risk promulgating it. That is dangerous to all involved.

While I sympathise with Peter Spencer’s plight to a fair extent, I think the title of his article; ‘War on farmers’ is really unfortunate. Regulations are not put there because bureaucrats, urban dwellers or non-farmers in general think farmers are a bunch of abject ratbags.

Peter admits up front that his “farm is probably one of the worst affected in Australia”. So he knows that what is happening to him is nowhere near the norm. We need to be very much aware of this. The majority of farmers are not significantly affected by vegetation management regulations, and a high portion of those that are understand the need for the restrictions and readily accept it. I fully support the whole deal, except for the compensation factor. This is my really big gripe – that compensation has been nowhere near sufficient, especially in cases like Peter’s

Steve, Please, may I suggest you read my paper – ex blog, on Eco System Services Protocol.

Your final comments regarding feral dogs attacking sheep is very complex once again I suggest your look at the paper on Pests on the blog. Also your comment about the sheep dying of fly strike. This is also complex, our management strategy includes clix but this year we have not money for such luxury and observation and rejetting is the best we can offer. Physically with my legs, also it is hard because I cannot afford help.

Regarding the comment about your stepfather killing the shepherd.

He probably would have then found out once taking the time and the interest and getting under his chip - that there was a lot more to the issue and that the Shepherd, would have been unfairly slaughtered..

Steve, you could learn from this – this blog, for if it to continue in it’s fine public service, requires responsibility and commonsense. I am afraid little of your prolific verbiage reflects either of these.

About the Cormorant and your suggestion for the need to change the blog entry regarding the matter. Steve I am a field practitioner I manage the environment. I am not subservient to it.

I feel Steve you misunderstand the purpose of the blog. That is how it is. The blog is to get some reality back into what is going on. Is that not important?

Steve, You remind me of the ABC and John Williams - your presentation is wrong.

Recently on Geraldine Doogue Sat program The Chief Scientist John Williams an A WWF rep made the statement that the NSW Native Veg act was an Ecosystems Service’s program and eluded to the fact that the $435Million was to go to farmers. The facts actually are none of the money is for farmer its for the Dept and Catchment manage O/H and the legislation is a purely regulatory document.

I drew this to Johns and the program’s attention but no response or retraction.

Con’t

Steve Madden, simply put, the bush and urban societies are symbiont – to survive, we must communicate. I, the farmer, can provide you with clean air, water, and biodiversity - your food and fibre needs - help me do that.

Steve, Just as you attacked me from your very first entry. You follow it up with a grand statement implying my case regarding damming Rock Hut creek was to be raised on the floor of Parliament due its questionable legality Steve, do you need to be so destructive? Do you have nothing better to do but sit there, feeling sorry for your self, destroying peoples lives.

Steve, I have better things to do then defend my self against the ravings of an ill-informed blabber mouth. BUT I will answer you here for the last time.

The Dams on Rock Hut Creek were planned and construct with the assistance of the then Soil Con Department who maintained an engineering earthmoving division just for this purpose - as it was then a Government priority, that farms build water storage facilities where ever possible.

The dams were actually constructed as pondages. This means we designed, on my insistence, the construction to include large under wall twin pipes with controlling gate valves concrete spillways and weir pipes so the actual creek could flow on down the catchment. So what you have is a unique pondage that holds back a large amount of water in flood but does not interrupt the regular flow. In addition this creates a wonderful marine ecosystem.

It is said this pondage and its connecting rocky stream flowing form the similar structure directly up stream may be the only place in Australia where trout may actual breed naturally.

In addition the fowl life and amphibian activity is such that scientist come here for recordings and sightings saying we have some very rare animals to be proud of.

Steve, Sorry to hear of your leukaemia - I thought I had problems. A bit like, I met a man with no feet!

Peter,

If you choose to submit an article to OLO please do not expect everyone to say poor old Pete hasn’t he has a tough time. I am not as ill informed as you imply. If you wish to engage in vigorous debate, welcome and if you do not go back to press releases.

I spent many happy years living near Adaminaby and remember the biggest problem, at that time, was rabbits.

If you had titled your article “war on family business” I may well have agreed, if you had not fudged some of the issues I may have had some sympathy. I only asked questions none of which you have chosen to answer. If you choose to air your views in a forum such as this do not expect me to agree without proof.

I tried for approval for a bed and breakfast on my property only to be told I was 120 meters too far away from the main road. This would have allowed me to be independent and employ 1 full time staff. But 120 meters is 120 meters. My next door neighbor wanted to build a shed to park his Mack prime mover and two refrigerated trailers in. $40,000 extra and disabled toilet and access later, Doug built his shed two years late. Stupid inflexible rules are not only the domain of farmers.

I wish you well in all your endeavors, running any kind of small business is a difficult task, but there is no “War on Farmers”

SuziQ

Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat

Fee Simple also implies the paying of a fee that is where the term comes from. I think Mr. Davis will eventually loose his land, and his followers will do the same.

If you would like to believe the Australian Patriot Movement that is your prerogative. I tend to be skeptical of any organisation with Patriot in its name.

in oz there is indeed an undeclared war on farmers waged by greenies and labour.....although you wont hear about it from main stream journos who are mainly left wingers.

the plan is simple, introduce draconian and unworkable laws to prevent farmers properly running their properties. these laws include land clearing, water harvesting and weed control.

all designed to bankrupt the farmer and drive him off the land, which could then be bought up by the gov to form national parks or given back to the natives.

the process taking place aroung oz at the moment overseen by extreemist leftist gov and communist greenies is no different than mugabe's land grab in zimbabwe where white farmers are simple forced off their land without compo........at least mugabe is honest and upfront about it and not sneaky like your typical labour/greenie pollie.

This post flushed out the usual metrocentrics, who fine tune their anti-rural bigotry. Any minor bit of safety net for farmers is seen as some sort of urban largesse but they forget their own heavily subsidised public transport. The urban safety net is not available to farmers.

There is a war against farmers, the truth died long ago and the spin merchants rush to bury the post with ignorance and derision. Knowledge of the death of truth went right to the top. The first clearing measures in NSW, SEPP 46, was justified on the basis of a claimed 150,000ha of clearing. The estimate, provided by John Benson of the Botanic Gardens, extrapolated to the entire state, from regrowth clearing on the north half of the Moree plain. Subsequent satellite scans revealed actual clearing between 8,000 and 12,000ha per annum, a 12 to 19 fold exaggeration.

When this came to light it was suppressed. And there was no appology from anyone. A government obtained a right, power or privilege over land by misrepresentation and deception. Later measures removed exemptions for minimal clearing etc despite the complete absence of evidence that these exemptions were being abused.

But don't expect a show of regret or compassion for the consequences of this gross malgovernance. The fact is that regional economies, regional communities and regional ecosystems will continue to decline for as long as the whims and fiat of metropolitan political elites can determine policy for regional areas. They simply do not, and will not, to make the time to be even partially informed on regional issues because they cannot even manage their own environment.

Name the issues, sewerage, congestion, marine ecosystems, transport and law & order, they have stuffed the lot. They spent billions on an olympic display of narcissism while the fish in their own front yard were drinking dioxin from the same location.

Regional economic and environmental decline will not be fixed until we have a state, or states, of our own. Nothing will succeed like secession.

Perseus: Yes please, go and succeed - to the Tanami Desert or somewhere else where you can claim to stand above the attempts to stop the rot in this country.

The facts remain:

1. Rot. Eg Problems with dry-land salinity in Australia affect 25,000 km2, with 170,000 km2 of the 300,000 km2 likely to be destroyed by salinity by 2050 based on current trends.

2. Assistance. Year after year there are claims for handouts when the inevitable drought hits (and no payback). Go and stand on your own feet like the rest of the country. Accept it costs more to live in the country and if you cant hack it, go and join the rest of the country.

Tree clearing laws only punish those who still have trees, they aren't a problem for people who knocked them all down long ago.. So people who have cared for the land are punished, and those who have exploited it to the hilt are rewarded - brilliant!

And to those whinging about rich farmers and government handouts, why don't you get out there and get yourselves some of those handouts? No-one's stopping you, get off your lazy butts, take responsibilty for yourselves and make yourself rich like all those farmers!

Vinny

“extreemist”. I love your spelling. In you case it should have about another five e’s!

“the plan is simple, introduce draconian and unworkable laws to prevent farmers properly running their properties…..”

“all designed to bankrupt the farmer and drive him off the land”.

“the process taking place around oz at the moment overseen by extreemist leftist gov and communist greenies……”


It was good for a laugh when I first read it. I thought, here’s a silly joker, hiding behind a pseudonym, chucking in some real claptrap just to see if some drongo will respond. But then it became apparent that he was indeed put this stuff forward as serious comment.

Hell’s bells!

I need make no further response (but see my next post)

Ludwig L.
(the drongo)

I remember, when talking to a friend of mine who had done some work in the Nationals in NSW, when I was explained the destination of taxation revenue in Australia. Since then, I have felt drought assistance to be the least we can do.

Every person from the city who pays taxes gets, on average, 1.2 times their tax dollars worth of things. This rises dramatically if a family member with children and an income below $50,000 a year. A person in a rural centre gets .7 times their money back. A single farmer gets .15, as he rarely accesses services in towns. In drought years, they get a product of recompense similar to that of a 3 child family from a city with their children in public schools/universities. Remember, these were rough figures worked out a guy who studied statistics, politics, political economy and economics at university.

Having a drought ever ten years and giving out drought assistance is allowing farmers to get their tax dollars back, nothing more, nothing less.

On the comments that Australian soil was not "made for agriculture" or that we're farming too much should remember that Europe was not "made" for most of the things grown there, things imported largely from the middle east, asia minor and the Americas, and most things growning in the USA were also imported. If we just farmed what we found on lands then Italy would not have American tomatoes on its pizzas.

Whilst very, very few farmers are on land which is unsustainable. With smarter technology, enough maintenance of waterways to allow natural sequestration (in unirrigated farms, or dry-land farms), fixed-up irrigation canals, a return to single export desks, maybe internal ones too, removing anti-clearing legislation for regrowth, and having better government funding with less red-tape... and so on and so on... our farms would not be in many of the troubles they are in.

Some learned agriculturist friends of mine has started referring to themselves as 'Kulaks'... because the Watermelons from Party Central will drive them off the land in whatever way they can.

Just wondering, Peter, if you have looked into (you probably have) these things. If you have, what response did you get from the authorities?

(I was told of these three potential "loopholes" in the Native Vegetation Conservation act of 2003 by a mate who's looking into using them on his property in the New England region.)

1. Claim a rotational policy will be enforced, or begin one, and thus be permitted a certain amount of clearing each year.
2. Argue that environmental outcomes will be improved by the clearing, especially referring to the streams, the loss of water to the regrowth, and the potential beneficial effects of water seeping from traps/pools/dams and being sequestered in the surrounding pastures, but also for the wellbeing of native animals.
3. Claim Routine Agricultural Management Activities, like pest control, and buffer zones around fences and buildings (perhaps build a shed in the middle of some regrowth). The problem is, it must be shown to be a routine thing.

I don't know the actual sections of the legislation on which you could base these claims, but i'll seek to find them in good time. In any case, I doubt that it your claims would be allowed, because although by the letter of the law you could clear much of that regrowth, the true environmental damage you would claim is dismissed by pseudo-science and Theory.

Well said Remco.

.
Hellothere writes: “Tree clearing laws only punish those who still have trees, they aren't a problem for people who knocked them all down long ago. So people who have cared for the land are punished, and those who have exploited it to the hilt are rewarded - brilliant!”

This is largely true. But how do we get around it? Those who overcleared got away with it, as did the governments that allowed them to do so. We can’t help that. All we can do is take it from here.

But the same applies with all sorts of other things. In fact, regulations have tightened up in a myriad ways due to; bad practices, overexploitation, and an ever-increasing scale of operations (all of which overlap).

Would love to know if you have any ideas on how to undertake regulatory activities in manner that is fair to all, and does not disadvantage current operators compared to past operators. Of course, it can’t be done. So we will just have to live with the reality that our forebears have made life a lot harder for us through their actions.

Yes, that’s where the blame lies, not with current governments and environmentalists, as Vinny subtly suggests

1. There is no one walking off the land and leaving it fallow. In other words, there is NO need for any concessions to keep the farmers in business.

2. There is no dispute on this - too much land is farmed in Australia.

3. Combine 1 and 2 and what follows is that assistance, concessions and favours (and I include special assistance to telecommunications, education, health etc) could be reduced to the rural sector to help stop the rot on the land. In other words, as for the rest of the country, if you dont like it, move on. Sell your land and retrain (or retire) like the rest of us who have to battle to live.

Those who remain, who buy out will live very well and can afford to pay the extra to attract health, education etc services (and again, if you cant, sell out to your neighbour).

Favours and concessions only serve to do one thing, to raise the price of rural land, to push the marginal land out further, and ipso facto, damage more land.

Australian stand for a fair go. But it seems the rural community wish to be seen as more equal than others.

Remco:
"1. There is no one walking off the land and leaving it fallow..."
An assumption made to back up an argument and then quoted as fact does not make it so. It does nothing more than make me question the validity of your posts. Even a cursory examination of the rural sector would make even you question what you put forward.

Why put forward inflammatory, and non-researched conjecture to make your point? If your aim is to convince others of the necessity of stripping farmers of assistance then, I guess, lies will convince the gullible and lazy.

Convenient ad-libbing makes a good story but an irrelevant point.

“2. There is no dispute on this - too much land is farmed in Australia.” I would imagine there would be people who would dispute that point. Unsustainable practices perhaps but as for too much, I think there would be those that could argue a case one way or the other.

“…like the rest of us who have to battle to live.” You assume that there are no farmers in need and, like so many others, find them easy prey to attack with impunity.

The ecological payback from farming that Ludwig puts forward has to be borne by everyone that has benefited from its past practices. For much of colonial history, Australia prospered economically, to a large extent, because of it. Now it is time to pay the fiddler and now, of course, it is all the farmer’s fault so they should be stripped of assistance and denounced as evildoers. Cheap shot, Remco and too many others.

“Australian stand for a fair go.” What the ….!

It seems in most aspects of life people cling to the past methods, no matter what the evidence is of their success or failure. Since this land was introduced to European agriculture we have had nothing but growing environmental trouble. All the evidence shows us that the methods we have imported are not conducive to this approach.

The only solution is to step into the future and use agricultural and farming methods that are harmonious with this type of climate and environment. To do this we have to change our type of stock and what we grow on large scales. Utilising native stock solves most problems as would the propagation of native plants and flora for fuels and alternative products.

This approach would open up new markets that would have little if no competition world wide. Native stock requires very little clearing and virtually no land management except fencing. Except for wool there is little difference in what can be produced by cloven hoofed animals and natives.

All the rhetoric in the world will not solve the problems, only compatible environmental methods will maintain and even improve all aspects of land use. We don't have to stop using cloven hoofed animals, but start replacing low carrying land with our environmentally friendly and easily maintained native animals.

Surely having a little sense and seeing that current practices are causing great harm and leading us to unsustainable land use and growing environmental destruction, shows that we are going in the wrong direction for this country. Use all the charts an figures you like, but reality always wins over statistics.

Ah the farmers, i have as much sympathy for them as they have for waterside workers and thier families.

Good point DFXK, the leakage from the regional economy is in direct proportion to the distance from the capital. The closer the State capital the more evenly the circular flow is distributed. Place two new state capitals in Tamworth and Wagga Wagga and watch the new states prosper. Leave the one capital for the entire area of NSW and watch as congestion chokes Sydney to death and destroys all semblance of a "quality of life". They even claimed a deserted beach on a December weekend as a success. Pathetic, and they think they have all the answers for the Bush.

And no need to debate regional enviro issues here, most readers are either ALP of Green voters, part of the problem, not the solution. When they have restored the Tank Stream to it's former condition they can come and have a chat about the Murray Darling.

How easy it is to cast judgements and waste words on things we know nothing about! As the old saying goes - "Don't judge other Indian til you walk in his moccasins".

How refreshing what the Alchemist said!

Yes, it is not about what has been, that glorious past, that time when the economy relied on agriculture, today less than 4 per cent, but about accepting know about what is sustainable. Yes there will be losers - mainly those that hang on against the tide.

The fact remains that the government (buying marginal votes) with its periodic handouts, efforts to subsidise essential services (just look at the Telstra debacle) and other measures to stop the change, only slows the inevitable adjustment process of rationalisation and optimisation. Producing what Australia can actually produce without handouts and disguised favours for those that can do it.

Let’s provide assistance, not to cover up for those that cant plan for the next inevitable drought, flood, fire etc. pretending it was unexpected, but direct assistance to help those that can not or will not plan – ie. those addicted to handouts and favours with jingoistic appeals. I say to those that tell the heart jerking stories of high costs, of deprivation, of collapses in markets, unfairness (like the author of the Farmers under Attack sob story), disease etc; YOU are the ones that need assistance – to LEAVE.

Australia is a tough land and those that acknowledge and accommodate that will prosper. Tear jerk stories have no place - any less than the thousands that lost their jobs under massive manufacturing industry restructuring or other setbacks that the rest of the country has had to endure.

Countries like Israel show what can be done in harsh environments with milk output double those of Australia and progressive environmental and water management. Here in Australia we are still caught up in whingeing, anecdotes of suffering and hardship and disadvantages and … and….and…...

I say shape up, or get out just like the rest of us urbanites. This is what I meant by a fair go. Strong, innovative, flexible and independent. Acknowledging that we overshot the mark with some still out of touch of reality

Just in case anyone may be wondering, Ludwig is a regulator, a fully paid up departmental VegNazi. So of course, he rarely sees any problems with regulations. They are his north, his south, his east and his west, and his daily bread. And all those silly farmers just don't get it, whats good for regulators is good for everyone. Another wonderful day in the brave new green utopia.

Even vege regulators and parking inspectors have a right (and indeed, responsibility) to justify their earth footprints. So as long as they don’t eat, consume, or drive cars, they’re OK with me.

Excellent posts from Alchemist and Remco.

At least a couple of posters on this thread are severely hung up on their hatred for those who are trying to steer us off our headlong path to destruction.

Their viewpoints are incomprehensible to me. Can’t they see that even if regulation is rather poorly carried out, it is still a whole lot better than no regulation. These people will either stew in their hatred and go to an early grave, or come to terms with the realities of the world. If they think they have been dealt an unfair hand, they need to put it in perspective and realise that they were dealt a very good hand indeed, placing them within the top few percent of people in the world, by being able to live in this country at this point in time, with all its freedom and opportunity.

This issue reminds me of the guy who used to make wooden buckets, they were really good buckets and he made a good living selling them.

Then a competitor started making metal buckets, they were not craftsman made but they did the job and were far cheaper than the wooden ones. The wooden bucket craftsman complained that the skills needed to make wooden buckets would be lost forever but he still went broke. The metal bucket man made his buckets in bulk and they became cheaper and cheaper but increased volumes made him a handsome profit.

Years later the grandson of the wooden bucket man, who saw his grandfather and father die in poverty still making wooden buckets, started making plastic buckets. These buckets were far cheaper than metal buckets, could be made in different colours and many sizes. The Grandson made a fortune and the metal bucket man started making garden sheds.

The moral of the story is know your product and know your market. The wooden bucket man forgot he was in the water transportation business. The metal bucket man realised he should use his basic product to make something else. The plastic bucket man moved to New Zealand because he could source raw materials cheaper.

Too many farmers and other small business owners forget the business they are in. Farmers are in the business of producing income from their land. Many forget this simple fact.

Your remark about those kangaroos eating all your vegetation was telling: Damn those kangaroos! It would be good if you could shoot them all.

The bucket story should be emailed to all the politicians bent on preserving 'wooden bucket manufacturers'.

Wouldn't it be nice that if after the next inevitable drought or flood, or unfair environmental regulation change, that 'bucket manufacturers' on the land were assisted to exit with dignity with funding now confined to retraining and relocation.

We have had the victim mentality in this country operating for far too long (aboriginals, manufacturers, trade unions and farmers) with far too much sympathy aimed at preserving rather than adjusting to today's 'plastic bucket' world.

Just make sure you send the bucket story to the Auto Unions (Mitsubishi bail-out) the Transport Unions (urban transit subsidies), The IT industry (outsourcing components), and all those quangos on the public drip.

Just more evidence from Shonga, Maddern, Ludwig, Remco and Hedgehog to remind folks in the regions that the urban public has lost the most important attribute of participants in a democracy. That is, the capacity to empathise with others of different backgrounds.

Without this capacity to understand the needs of diverse communities and occupations, the city has squandered its right to govern the regional minority. The regional economic models demonstrate that capital cities take a free ride on the productive capacity of the regions. And we get nothing but ignorance and contempt in return.

So keep it up fellas, every time you open your mouth you bring forward the day when we have our own state capital in our own region, distributing our own full share of GST funds on our own priorities.

Perseus, you sound like some of those religious minorities that need to carve out a niche for themselves where none really exists except in their heads. The rural sector is comprised of people going about their own business, just like the rest of the country and the only difference being that they have their own political representation (the Nationals) that by their efforts to differentiate, alienate the country from the rest of us (and often succeed with the concessions they manage to squeeze out out the rest of the country with sob stories and obfuscations).

The country people have made a choice not to work in the cities and so assume the risks and the costs and the deprivations. It was THEIR choice to live there. Should the urbanites now be periodically be called upon to subsidise their choice when the weather turns against them next time? Should urbanites make concessions in environmental laws acknowledging the growing awareness of the mess the land, the waters etc are in?

We live in a country of free choice. If you cant hack it, move and that's where the government (ie us taxpayers) could step in: to help those that can not handle the conditions, the deprivations, the costs, the droughts, the environmental initiatives.

We have to live in today and not try to hold onto the past and slow the shifts that are necessary. This is a country of freedoms and free choice but some seem to want to be protected and subsidised.

Perseus, can u explain to me why city bound manufacturing or waterside workers would have any sympathies for Farmers who through thier union the National Farmers Federation, extensively fund legal and political attacks upon ordinary working people. If Farmers really thought about it, they would be far better off forming alliances with Labour unions.

Perseus, good to hear some sanity in here.

The callousness of some people in this forum to the plight of farmers is quite startling. The 'plight of the worker' with his regular job, assurances against being sacked, and dozens of legal entitlements seems to garnish sympathy, but the 'plight of the farmer', who provides proportionally more to our economy than all but miners, and yet is attacked more by central government and dependant on good weather, is not just ignored, but provokes anger and uncharitable rage.

I think having two new states: New England, North-East NSW down to Newcastle, and with Bogan river on the west as its boundary; and Riverina, Between the Murray and Lachlan, with the Eden area added on to make up numbers - able to bring in the ACT into the state to boost numbers -, would both be beneficial to those two regions economically. I do, however, wonder whether it is a good idea. Loosing those two regions would render us poor conservatives (poor as in pitiable, rather than economically poor) in Sydney with no chance at winning the state election. I think the solution would be to win the election, rather than seek a new state. The new state idea has always bloomed at times of adversity... the River state proposed during Lang's grip over NSW, and New England during the 60's (can't remember the accompanying adversity).

Brogdan could have done it, because he could have snagged the doctors' wives with his youth and wet liberalism. Debnan will be trying to snare a different group, poorer and more conservative, and he might well succeed due to Labor's attempts to shoot itself in the foot.

They have to be hush-hush about environmental policy before the election, and first thing when elected, clear land clearing legislation.

To DFXK and Perseus and other supporters of the victim mentality MINORITY in the rural community, I simply ask this.

If in my industry there are some that are suffering from being located in the wrong place, or subject to some economic or weather vagary year after year, would YOU feel sorry for me, my children and their children and hand me money or concessions year after year especially as most of my competitors are sitting on million dollar properties (ie. businesses).

I think not for you would say to me get out and leave it to the more successful.

Victim mentallity has been played out to be institutionalised in Australia in some quarters.

Australia has rich productive land. It simply has been over extended with some still undersized farms. Some still have learned that every few years it gets rough and dont provision for it expecting the National Party to engineer concessions, extenuating circumstance handouts, communications assistance, education, medical etc favours. No wonder so many in the rural sector sit quietly, distributing their wealth through family trusts and on million dollar properties as de facto superannuation funds IF they chose. No wonder family trusts remain as a furphy ignored by government.

Callous? No well orchestrated sympathy my those reticent to adjust and a government reluctant to focus its favours to help those adjust, not stay.

The politics or envy are alive and well. People living in 2 bedroom city apartments professing to know all about farming - or are they trying to impress us with their debating skills rather than their knowledge of anything in particular?

This is obviously a ploy to get those remaining country properties broken up and sold down to city folk for their impending “tree change” which by its very name implies their preference for some mature trees on their property by the time they arrive. Sure there are cheap “bush blocks” but these don’t have sufficient infrastructure provisions and do not allow weekenders.

Frankly, DFXK, I really don't care who wins an election in the city state of NewSydGong. It is not my problem. We in the country all choose to live in the country but for some perverted notion of democracy, we must endure an urban government that is not of our choosing. And we must endure the consequences of ignorant urban governance by people with the sort of attitudes displayed on this trail.

It is our choice, and our right, to form a government, a new state within the broader Australian federation, that is capable of understanding our problems and responding accordingly. The blatant bigotry and vilification that we have observed here demonstrates that there are two distinct communities. One of them imposes their will on the other while the other cops flack for even raising a concern. The current state entity is not working, or is only working for an ambivalent majority.

And even yourself, who we probably have a lot in common, saw the issue from your own urban self interest. That is, we need to continue under repression because without it, urban liberals could not win a metropolitan election.

Not good enough. Not by a long stretch.

Suffering in your jocks,like the rest of us. Wake up, Howard is responsible for all your woes.Ten years in power, if your suffering who is to blame?

Good stuff Remco.

It’s time that the bitter old man and his couple of less extreme buddies gave it a break and entered the real world, where farmers are equal to the rest of us.

Most farmers and graziers with whom I have spoken, and that’s hundreds over many years, have a real feeling for their land, including all the vegetation and wildlife on it. They notice when certain birds or animals disappear or increase in number, or when certain plants flower at odd times or fail to set fruit. They notice the changing composition of the grasses with fire, with wet or dry seasons or with grazing pressure.

So often that I have lost count people on the land have said, “I’m not a greenie but……”. They don’t want to be known as greenies, but they are true environmentalists. These people are admirable. Yes, some of them want to clear more land, but they mostly have a sense of balance about what they should clear and what they should leave.

They unanimously understand that there are rogue operators out there who have vastly overcleared and still will if they get the chance. They understand the need for tree clearing legislation.

Increasing regulation / restrictions on farmers is NOT a ‘war on farmers’, nor anything of the sort, It is an honest attempt, done differently by different state governments, to protect both ecological values and long-term productivity. In other words; to reach sustainability.

Those who vehemently denounce these increases in regulation and promulgate the us-and-them attitude where farmers are purely victims and bureaucrats, governments, urban dwellers and indeed any non-farmer are the abject enemy, are a really unfortunate bunch sorry souls who have lost their way. If they achieve anything, it is damage to their own health and an increase in the divisions in our society, which is bound to work against the minority, in this case farmers.

Dredging up the same old anecdotal stuff again, Ludwig. Unanimous support from farmers for the veg-leg? Get real, and have a scrap of respect for the intelligence of the readers. Most country areas have 75% National Party or similar Independent support. The exceptions are electorates with either coastal tourism or mining. Take out the teachers and others on temporary postings to the bush and that support increases to about 80% and amongst farmers it is closer to 90%. And their most significant issue (until the health debacle) was the loss of property rights and bungled vegetation legislation.

And here we have a departmental drone trying to delude himself, and anyone gullible enough, that farmers support the the injustices done to them. Do you get paid for this, Ludwig? Will it go on your resume for your next job?

I'm with you Perseus.The over regulation and incompetence of this Labor NSW Govt knows no bounds.Totally arrogrant ,out of touch,ignorant and absolutely stupid.

Just look their new proposal for a desalination plant in Sydney.It will use the energy of 250,000 cars per day,cause pollution and use our vital energy resources.They won't consider recycling of water because they assume people won't drink their own waste.A private company had to take Sydney water to court to gain access to our waste sewerage.They fought tooth and nail to deny access because this would break the Govts monoply on water supply.That's why they want to sell us bottled electricity in the form of a desalination plant!

Well guess what,sewer poors into Warragamba Dam and that's why we have problems with guiardia and cryptosporidium.They use the same logic to shut down the operations of farmers and the logging industry.What a bunch of hypocrites!

Either this Govt is totally stupid and bereft of common sense or they have become totally corrupt.

Arjay I agree with you that there lots of really bad directives undertaken by various state governments and the feds. The water issue in Sydney, Perth, and many other places across the country is one of them. My biggest gripes are their unified promotion of continuous expansion of population and economy, thus taking us rapidly away from sustainability and over the precipice into a very different and much uglier society. The water issue is really just a subset of this.

But when it comes to tree-clearing, they are at least on the right (the good) half of the spectrum. It’s a long way from perfect, but then I have never said it was nor anywhere near it. As I have said before, even with all its imperfections and lack of fairness, it is a million times better than no tree-clearing or vegetation management regulation. Even Perseus won’t touch this part of the argument.

You could rest assured that if Perseus got his way with a new state, and became premier of it, he would run into a lot of the same problems of governance that he is so condemning of current governments over. A new state or regional rural government would achieve practically nothing, all else being the equal. He is not big on offering realistic alternatives.

I gave up debating with him last year after it became patently clear that he was incapable of sensible debate, being just totally polarised at every opportunity and often strongly misrepresenting of those that he disagrees with. For example, in is last post he says; “unanimous support from farmers for the veg leg”. Did I say there was unanimous support? I’m not sure whether it is deliberate misrepresentation or a really basic thought-process problem that leads him straight to extremes, but it’s chronic whichever it is. And he is always strongly offensive to boot. This is the signature of a very poor debater. I’d be very careful about aligning yourself with him.

I agree, Arjay. The amazing thing about water recycling is that effluent is more valuable to a farmer with the sewerage still in it than after it is "treated". Primary treated sewerage has $9 worth of nitrogen per megalitre and a high volume of soaps and other alkalis that can improve soil PH with lower use of Lime. So a simple swap of the farmer's good irrigation water for the city's fertiliser laden water would avoid the need for secondary treatment altogether. But that wouldn't create any urban water jobs for the boys, would it.

Ludwig, put any spin your departmental boss wants you to put, but the facts are that good, workable plans were developed in both Qld and NSW, by local Veg Planning groups, and in both states, they were thrown out by the urban political elite because they did not fit the view of the world from Glebe or Windsor.

So which part of "callous disregard for the rights of regional communities" do you not understand?

And history will show that both States acted on gross misrepresentation of the facts in relation to the character, scale, intensity and frequency of the range of vegetation change.

And in relation to Peter Spencer's district, if a principle of no-net-loss of native vegetation is to apply, why does the legislation fail to recognise HIS NET GAIN? If his forest has expanded during the period of his tenure, why do the clearing controls prevent him from making even minor adjustments to his veg cover? The clearing controls should only have applied to his property when or if the vegetation cover returns to the level it was when he bought the place.

What your comments have demonstrated here, Ludwig, is that both yourself and your department are too ignorant, and too malicious, to be trusted with any power over the interests of the regional community.

It would be very useful for the small number of correspondents who so vehemently lambast governments and bureaucrats to watch Landline (Sundays at noon on ABC TV) and listen to Bush Telegraph (daily at 11am on Radio National) to get a feeling of just how farmers are working with government people and scientists for the improvement of their lot and that of the country.

There is a great deal of goodwill out there. Sure there is criticism directed by all groups at every other group, but only very few people – only those that are really bitter, warped or simple-minded – level blanket condemnation at other groups.

In the interests of clarification, I tow no party line and I am by no means a lackey of my employer. My views are expressed entirely of my own volition based on my own knowledge and 23 years experience in north and central Qld. As far as tree-clearing matters are concerned, these views are pretty well in line with those of my employer but as far as sustainability matters go, I am vehemently critical of my department and state government.

One particular correspondent goes on like a broken record about me being a departmental officer (always expressed in very ‘colourful’ language) as though I should be embarrassed or ashamed of this - as though it is the sin of the century! Well, I am very proud to be have been able to make a career out of my passions – botany, ecology, geology and big-picture environmental issues, to work in a very positive manner towards sustainability and to have had the opportunity to really get to know many farmers, graziers, developers and consultants through my work.

So, may this person keep on letting every OLO reader know that Ludwig is a state government ‘bureaucrat’…. in fact much more of a field-based scientist than a desk-bound shinybum. (Oh no, not a scientist as well! Now I have reeaaaally put myself in the firing line!!)

As a former regular contributor to ABC Bush Telegraph, Ludwig, I can report from my own first hand experience, and those of many other rural opinion leaders, that the ABC is involved in heavy censorship of the content. It, like Landline, is a joke. It is a sickly, sacharine sop to the urban publics desire to see some sort of buccolic rural idyle. Anything that might clash with the green curtains is edited out quick smart. The preference is for "positive" stories, which is code for ensuring that the real perspective of the regional viewer never gets to air.

Even more sinister is the fact that the ABC now splits its news coverage. With one set of reportage going to the regions with some semblance of balance while the metropolitan coverage runs a blatant left/green party line. Many country people are not even aware that the same news gets two different treatments. In this way the urban bias and ignorance is reinforced at election time while the rural minority is left wondering why they are treated with such contempt.

And I don't have a problem with you being a departmental officer, Ludwig, but people have a right to know the context of your statements. Besides, you'd probably cause even more damage in a real job.

C'mon Perseus, be fair. Peter Spencer has had a pretty fair run on Radio National's 'Counterpoint', even to the extent of weekends at Shannons Flat being well publicised by Michael Duffy. And Duffy did a whole series, which seemed to last forever, but was, I think, four weeks, attacking green and bureaucratic attitudes to land-clearing. Not to mention interminable quoting of listeners' letters and emails thereafter.

I still have the email, with the suggested script, and the recommended changes to essentially the entire story. So Duffy gets a regular spot, that is not evidence of any absence of green/left censorship. They are more clever than that.

Another example was when I was speaking on private forestry. At the time I was one of the top 7 private foresters in Australia. I was allowed 2 minutes of closely vetted airtime to convey 3 generations of forest management insights. And who do you think they had for the rest of this "country hour"? They had some sort of Perth based fashion designer for powder caked Liberal Party buzzards, who's only claim to fame was that she "got lost" for four hours in a forest as part of a green media stunt. She got 58 minutes to ramble on about how she does her little bit for the environment "by incorporating the colours of the rainforest in her creations". As if wearing a turd coloured shirt will solve a piggery's effluent problem.

The simple fact is that the ABC gets a great deal of funding on the basis of a claimed service to the bush but rarely delivers. Prime time on the urban airwaves is pure green/left territory.

Let's get back on track. The fact remains that some still think this country rides on the back on the sheep's back. It doesn’t! At best 4 per cent!

In Australia one can freely choose one's career and livelihood. Some in the rural community believe they have roots and right to public moneys to bail them out for the next inevitable flood, drought, price collapse etc. Why are you special?

This group in our society has its own political party that AMPLIFIES the duress of a few. Many are won over by the bleatings of the National Party in the context of a gerrymandered political system ensuring their favoured status. Being a new country with a fragile eco-system - we have over extended ourselves. Admit it.

We have heard the whining of the trade unions about "workers rights" which we all know are "workers priviliges" won at the expense of other workers not so powerful. The so-called war on the farmers is simply nothing more than their erosion of their privileged status.

Facts? Well show me where land is exchanged at zero value. No, you cant because we have a system of bailing out and land has positive value. The fair go principle so blindly followed to help the MINORITY.

Australia is gradually evolving to be accountable. I remember the bleatings from manufacturing industry in the 1980s when tariffs were reduced and their projections of gloom and doom. I remember how the unions squealed about workers rights. Now our rural sector. Well, YES there is a war - one on their privileged status. I look forward to when the ATO addresses family trusts and brings their privileged status down to the rest of us.

What about a fair go to make the rural sector just another partner in Australia. If you cant lump it, get out and I sincerely hope my money will help you LEAVE, not stay and find peace in the suburbia.

There is NO war only in the minds of the fringe amplified by their political party in a gerymandered system.

Gerrymander? Remco, this is 2006. Have you spent the last 30 years with your head in a paper bag? Or are you just back from the planet Gonzon? And given you apparent dislike of all things rural, Can we assume that you will be voting in favour of a new state boundary just north of Newcastle, South of Woollongong and somewhere near Lithgow?

Here's your big chance to put your 'parasitic farmers' theory to the test, matey. What are you waiting for? And as your imagined gerrymander will no longer be in your city state, it won't effect you at all.

Can I have a $100 donation to the cause?

It's about fairness. Fairness to chose where one lives and work and assume the risks (and rewards) without drawing on the goodwill of others (the 96 per cent) who dont have always have all the information and swayed by a slick public relations image of suffering (you know the pic of the farmer on the parched land with a dead sheep behind him).

Good luck if you make your millions but if you plead for bailout, then expect the piper to also call in the good years. He doesnt does he?

Let's focus instead on the excellence in the rural community and its potential. Focus on Australia's image as a good clean country and what we could do with quality products. Focus on the excellent land it has and how it continues to be responsibly managed. Focus on the new technologies being exploited to manage the larger farms. But hey, let's cut the victim talk of some on the fringe.

No Remco, it is about the fairness of choosing to live in a place but still be subject to the ill-informed whimsies of metropolitan swing voters who begrudge any benefit to the regional community while wallowing in subsidised urban largesse. Only 70% of the wealth that is generated in the regions actually circulates back to the regions. And we are expected to accept that as a fair price to pay for the privilege of being governed by a boofhead from Glebe on a mission from Captain Planet?
Give me a break.

So you feel that other people owe it to the rural community?

So others need to act as insurers to bail out the farmers for the next INEVITABLE drought, flood, fire, famine etc. What about self insurance - putting away a bit in the good years (or paying the "others" back in good years).

The farmers choose to live where they do. Some on the fringe are hurting, and like thousands others, are resisiting.

Australia has rich lands. It has smart people and potential to excell (again like the Israeli farmers working in most difficult conditions sometimes). It claims to be among the world's most efficient.

It is about adapting or getting out.

It is not about some fuzzy concept of spillovers to the urbanites and hey, now pay me back when the vagaries turn sour as you put it.

It is about being strong and independent and realistic. Producing better, accepting the vagaries of climate or getting out.

Again, I point to the fact there is no zero value land as a leading indicator that I am right. Soft touches are not in the long term interest of the farmers. Read for example Michael Porter's Competitive Advantage of Nations.

Farmers have lived the lie of victims too long. The strong are laughing up their sleeves at the whingers on the fringe and capturing the benefits.

Can I point out this isn’t about 1 particular farmer having problems, but an entire industry beset by over-regulation and constraints.

This is an industry that feeds you people. Wheat for your bread; meat for your burgers, steaks; fruit and veges. Fibre for your clothes. When we all go, as many of you seem to feel we should, who feeds you? Do any of you grow your own veges?

You put up with executives making multi millions as a yearly wage via the computer companies, banks etc and stomp on the guy who puts the food in your bellies. Where’s the complaints about that?

Are you complaining as loudly about Californian oranges flooding Australia’s market and putting your country neighbour out of business? Probably not.

I've been married to a farmer for over 35 years, and can tell you the days of the rich cockie are well and truly over. Outside of the Packers and Holmes a Courts, the basic farmer has a 2% return on his gross and a lifestyle that most of you would not have the intestinal fortitude to handle.

Every farmer I know has an outside income to supplement his farming – wife works, he contract works, shears, whatever. The superannuation your boss gives you – we provide for ourselves, and when it balances between grain to feed starving cattle and super – our own needs take second place.

Farmers in Broken Hill and outback areas may have spare money, but they can drive over an hour before they meet a neighbour, don’t have net access, phones are breaking down, home school their kids until they have to go to boarding school, fuel costs are monstrous. My daughter often sees no-one but her husband for days. Most of you people couldn’t survive out there. But you’re happy to pull those who can down.

We have farmed over 30 years, seen 2 major downturns in cattle prices – lasting approx 5 years each: major downturn in wool prices in 1986, which is still current in 2006. 3 droughts – 2 lasting 4-5 years each.

Cont ….

Cont…I have seen crows picking the eyes out of calves and lambs being born during the droughts; starving wild dog packs –usually town dogs – rip into stock. Farmers getting $1 a head for starving stock in the 80’s drought. Forget the “slick publicity images” Remco – here’s facts.

The handouts we got during that time consisted of a drought relief loan, which we paid back, and the dole for farmer’s wives in the ‘80s. Oh, and a diesel rebate – which mining companies also get. Lots of handouts eh!

But you all still want to eat, don’t you. You see steak selling for $22 a kg and think the farmer is making big money – in fact, he gets about $2.50 a kg for a live beast. Are you aware that we get less for a heifer than a steer? But is there a price difference in the meat stands? Have a word to your butcher about that one.

Well, I can tell you that I am seeing a decline in small family farming in this area, that will mean larger monopolies moving into farming, and you can bet they will control the prices better than the small guy can – so save up or forget what a steak tastes like.

As to subsidies, etc – drought loans HAVE TO BE PAID BACK. They are not a gift. Any other discounted prices are no different to the types of tax relief any business in Australia can get.

One day you might all have your way – everyone will live on the coast in the cities and the rest of the state will be state forest and you can live on factory made tucker. Maybe then you might understand.

Bottom line – if you live in the city and have never worked or lived on a farm or in the country – get out of the conversation.

So you have hardships. Dont martyr yourselves and your children for the sake of cheap produce. Leave, and enjoy the wonderful life the rest of us enjoy. Dont punish yourselves for us - we dont really appreciate your sacrifice.

And dont worrry, THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO ZERO VALUE LAND! In other words, someone is always there to buy you out. And if you stay, then with a bit of luck you will have a photo opportunity in the next drought to be pictured in front of a dead sheep to get the inevitable payout arranged by your political party. It's your life and your choice to endure or to enjoy. We will not subsidise your lifestyle.

Yes at the FRINGE there are difficulties with seasonal and world economics and of course, the UNFAIR TO THEM environmental regulations.

Please put yourselves and your family BEFORE the rest of the country.

Stay and put up, or get out. Let the strong evolve with the quality that this country has produced and independently! Quality products produced on environmentally responsible managed lands in a country with a world image for quality. Australia is shaking out its victims, first in manufacturing in the 1980s, then the unions, but some at the fringe in rural Australia still hang on to jingoistic pleas. It's your life to chose.

You still don't get it, do you, Remco. You and your ignorant marginal urban electorate mates are the problem. The symptoms often show up as rural decline, diminishing terms of trade, insufficient fodder reserves (eaten by your exploded 'roo population) and mostly, regulatory sledge hammers to do the job of a scalpel.

We are sick to death of every minor government outlay in the bush being used as an excuse for deprivation of rights and liberties. That is why we want nothing to do with the city state that has been thrust upon us. Give us our own state within the commonwealth and we will gladly have abolutely nothing to do with you.

And we can get on with developing our export markets, policing our streets (properly), educating our kids and maintaining our roads according to our own priorities, set by our own parliament, with our own fair share of the GST money. Why would we need to go through a bunch of Sydney spivs to organise GST money from the Feds?

Excellent posts Remco.

Terrible stuff SuziQ; “Bottom line – if you live in the city and have never worked or lived on a farm or in the country – get out of the conversation.”

How outrageous! This debate is open to all, and so it should be.

Remco, no one gets what Perseus is on about. His concept of a separate state for farmers is one of the hairiest things I have ever heard. Presumably it wouldn’t have particular boundaries, as rural and non-rural people live in a mosaic. Or if it did have geographic boundaries, would all the urban townsfolk within the new state be expelled, along with all the non-immediately-rural businesses?

It is a totally negative concept. It is just a manifestation of more divisions and a further promulgation of the us-and-them attitude, which he is very good at. He actually makes it sound more like a separate country rather than a state. There doesn’t seem to be any willingness to work with the rest of the country – it is all just entirely self-centred.

And what makes him think that governance would be significantly better? There are enough rural shires in the country to realise that rural governance is not significantly better than the urban variety.

There is no war on farmers. But there are a couple of rural correspondents on this thread who are not far off declaring war on non-farmers. I think they are an embarrassment to the vast majority of farmers.

What saddens me is like the religious and cultural divisions and turmoils evident around the world, it is being expressed by some Australians on this topic. Somehow, rural people feel different, undermined, undervalued, exploited and controlled by urbanites. They express pain, discomfort, costs and deprivations that are not understood and appreciated. Sounds familiar? Oddly though, they still don’t want to live in comfort with us.

What seems to me is that we need to offer a new paradigm, a vision and means to get there. We have beautiful land, educated people and markets. Clearly some still hang on to old thinking and ways. They ignore salination and degradations and defend their rights to exploit (even the kangaroos have to be culled). Maybe they might need to adapt and get smarter.

I quoted Israel. Here is a country half the size of Tasmania and that includes desert. The country supports 7 million people. (Think of that, making allowance for their desert, the whole population of Australia could be kept in Tasmania and supported there). Australian dairy farmers study Israeli techniques and irrigation processes and that in a country just 60 years old. They are adaptive and just do it. Some Australians cry about hardships, unfairness and self sacrifice for others. Stuck old thinking people.

It's time we bought the self-perceived victims back 'out from the cold' and gave them responsibility for their own affairs. Educating them about managing the inevitable future droughts, collapses in world prices and new ways of farming like those in Israel. Helping the resistant to leave.

I am saddened in seeing pictures of dead sheep on parched lands and wasted efforts in preservation rather than adapting and getting smart. To show the world that like Israel, being of quality people managing a difficult land to produce appropriate and quality goods without this victim, mendicant mentality that drowns out those that get on with it. The National Party, like the Sin Feinn in Northern Ireland, is fanning the flames of a few. Repeat a lie often enough and they begin to believe it themselves. Blinkered to the opportunities.

Here you go again, Ludwig, setting up your own absurd interpretation and then criticising it as if it were mine. A classic ploy of the propagandista. None of the numerous options for new states have ever considered a state without the country towns. It is the metropolitan hordes with no idea and buckets of bigotry that we can do without. And if you ever actually related to people in the bush you would know that people in the towns are just as supportive of the concept as farmers. But of course, Ludwig claims to be part of the bush but he obviously prefers a political system that imposes urban priorities on his country neighbours. It must get pretty lonely out there sometimes.

And as for Remco, full of his own crap remedies for regional problems but I bet he doesn't even own a house block of land or a single tree.

OK so country towns are allowed in the new rural state. What about larger towns? What about Cairns or Townsville? Afterall, North Queensland is for the most part rural. But there are large urban populations in these centres. Would they be allowed in a new northern state or are they too much like Brisbane and the Gold Coast?

My interpretation is based entirely on what I have read about this idea of a separate state for farmers from one correspondent, plugged on a number of threads on this forum, and ignored by the vast majority if not all other correspondents. I have entertained debate on separate states before, and I think that a two-tiered system of government has some merit. But a separate state based on segregation of rural people and “metropolitan hordes”? Um…no.

I value genuine debate on this forum. I am not about to invent an interpretation that I think is not what the particular correspondent is trying to put across.

As always this single correspondent fails to address the points of concern that I expressed, or at best responds to just one. Is he actually agreeing with all the others? Can he not mount a counter-argument? Would it not be a much better approach, in the interests of his arguments, to tackle all the points that are raised regarding his suggestions?

Talking of setting up false interpretations or perhaps complete fantasy, what is this; “Ludwig claims to be part of the bush but he obviously prefers a political system that imposes urban priorities on his country neighbours”.

Need I say it, I have never in any way claimed to be part of the bush and of course I want a system of governance that is as fair as possible for all of us.

I don’t think this person is in any position to ever accuse anyone of falsehood or “absurd interpretation” of any sort ever again.

On Line Opinion is a valuable forum for exchanging ideas and some really deeply considered contributions have been made, including on this topic, from both sides of the fence. Amongst others, SusiQ presented a well considered contribution over two pages but this long debate is now being capped off by the personal diatribes of Perseus.

Perseus does not address the subject, and falls onto loaded opinion and even seeks to disqualify contributors based on their property ownership. It undermines the valuable insights of others notably again by SusiQ and the like.

This website needs a moderator to ensure the subject (and not the contributors) are addressed.

Steve,
I loved the wooden buckets post mate, what a great analogy, right on the money. If I sum the situation up correctly, the poor old farmer,whinge,whinge,whinge, should have been the title to this one.

I have a piece of property of poor quality, that hardly supports my business, I won't do what I tell others they should do, deregister the business, retrain at something, and seek employment, or start another business, no not me, I'm a farmer, so I expect the taxpayer to look after me, drought subsidy, flood subsisdy, all the business subsidies of course, tax dodges etc, etc...

Now you lazy dole bludgers, get off your collective bums, retrain if you are unemployed. If you are a plumber, retrain as a lady's dress designer, anything, face reality, all you disability pensioners that we employers have run into the ground, get over it, even if medical professionals have told you that's impossible, what do they know...blah,blah,blah...Me, eh! me, oh no, not me I am a poor old farmer, you need me, I'm not efficient, ummmm...

Thanks fellas, whenever I need to explain why regional areas have no future under metropolitan domination I can simply show them your prejudices. Clearly, what you would like most is a rural economy with no social safety net. That way all the assorted urban vultures would be free to pick over the casualties and get good land for bargain prices. The classic hypocrisy, all social conscience for your own urban tribe but switch to extreme social darwinism whenever a farmer is in sight. It is all good grist for my mill.

Oh dear, this sounds a child’s tantrum!

I keep trying to get the previous correspondent to partake in sensible debate by throwing up fair and reasonable questions. But he won’t go near most of them. It seems they are just too hard. He picks out the occasional one and treats it in isolation. Many times over the three months that I have been on this forum, this has happened. And there is so much hateful, strongly divisive and directly offensive stuff thrown in. Surprise surprise, Ludwig is not his only detractor!

“It is all good grist for my mill.”

What does this mean? I presume he feels that it just supports his argument: that urban people don’t care about farmers. It seems to me that everything supports his argument in his mind. Either that or it is neutral.

I had to laugh when he lambasted the ABC (6/2 on this thread). Even the nearest thing to a balanced forum in our media incurs his complete wrath!

“Anything that might clash with the green curtains is edited out quick smart.”

O yeah? what about Counterpoint (6/02/06) (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1561698.htm), where Jennifer Marohasy and Wolfgang Kasper ripped Jared Diamond’s ‘Collapse’ to pieces? I found their attempt to discredit him absolutely appalling, but I know that it is something that our favourite correspondent totally supports. Terrible stuff from those two, but a great program for its breadth of coverage and overall well-balanced approach.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again, because it is very important, and strongly relevant to this thread:- farmers are the ones who are going suffer from any exacerbated rift between themselves and the wider community, because they are the minority and don’t hold the power of government or big business. It is very strongly to their disadvantage for some individuals who align themselves with farmers to accentuate the us-and-them mentality and to strongly project hate for the perceived enemy – practically anyone who is not a farmer.

Ludwig achieves enlightenment on the perfection of his sneer. Yeah, right, give us a break.

And I again put the case re who's complaining and why?

On comparison to 60 year old Israel, if on arable land ratio nearly the whole population of Australia could live in, AND be fed from Tasmania alone, what then is mainland Australia producing and why will there be requests for aid during the next drought, flood or whatever? Why do our farmers go to that young country to learn?

What the heck is wrong with Australia's rural community? Salination, rivers dying and erosion - and they cant manage it themselves, needing me to dip into my pocket year after year

Peter it a tradegy what has happened to you and to so many others. This is no isolated incident. How do we make sense of it? We cant because what is increasingly happening can only be labeled insane. I have looked into what is behind all this and what I found is horrifying. There is a new (not really all that new )belief system driving the elite who are behind these decisions that are not all that easy to understand. Those behind it deliberately dont want us to understand. It is not just Australia and it is not just you, it is every where. Frankley individuals like you and me are expendable in the thrust for a completely transformed global society who worship nature and the earth as their god. In case you dont know it, what has happened to you is related to what was learned in soviet Russia. Marxism and socialism have now been beaten into communitarianism and that means you have to lose out for the betterment of the common global good. Sorry about that. I am not a farmer, I wanted to be,but my dad wouldnt let me, nearly all my relations have been farmers. You could try reading some of the stuff on www.crossroad.to to find out more or chasing up Henry lamb in the USA who writes to represent people like you and me. There is an answer, but while we have two established political parties who hold power and the majority vote for them because they tickle their fancies. Farmers and rural people like us have no leg to stand on and no one to represent us so we are expendable for the so called good of the planet. It is a farce a fantacy and we will end up with a hell on earth far worse than they did in Russia.

Why do (the minority of) farmers want to hold on in the course of so much suffering, sacrifice, lack of appreciation for their plight? Are they martyrs?

Haven't they learned to put themselves and their families first?

Why do they hold on in the face of such neglect? Why do they (the minority) chose to suffer?