[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.