I thank Perseus for the mellow response. Hey, we found some more points of agreement:

I agree that the compensation factor has been woefully inadequate. But you have got to point the finger at the Federal government for that.

I also agree that the funding for regional ecosystem mapping, and the prompt attendance to landholders who have inaccurate mapping on their properties, has been really minimal.

But no matter what spin you put on the breakdown of clearing figures, the fact remains; the clearing of remnant vegetation was absolutely massive, and had to be curtailed.

I have often wondered why there hasn’t been a much stronger reaction against this whole business, including massive protests, class actions, etc. I have come to the conclusion that this is because the overwhelming majority of landholders can see exactly why it has been implemented and agree with it in principle. Most landholders with whom I speak, who often have inaccurately mapped regional ecosystems or remnant vegetation on their properties, and who have to go to a lot of trouble to get it corrected before they can proceed with clearing or development, freely say that they understand why the restrictions have been brought in.

Many landholders are environmentalists at heart. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard; “I’m not a greenie, but….” The people on the land have first-hand experience with the consequences of mismanagement by way of overclearing, overgrazing, etc (mostly not their own mistakes). Many if not most are only too happy for restrictions to apply to them if they also apply to others, especially the big landholders, who could otherwise potentially clear huge areas, and their neighbours, whose actions could affect them.

Of course, there is the full gamut of views out there, right up to Perseus’ complete condemnation end of the spectrum. But in my humble experience of regular discussions with landholders all over north and central Queensland for many years, most by far are somewhere on the other half of the spectrum.

Daggett, There is currently a proposal by the Pacific Islands Forum Nations for Australia to develop a temporary workers visa so that a fixed number of young islanders can come to Australia to do the jobs that European backpackers do not fill at present. We have a temporary visa system for the people whose subsidies have destroyed any notion of level playing field in agricultural markets but we do not have one for those who seek nothing more than an opportunity to get ahead.

And it is not just fruit picking. Rural Australia is tied to international markets but is saddled with domestic wage rates. And this means that only the high yield proportion of the total amount of work to be done, actually gets done. The remaining proportion, like environmental repair, weed control, manual thickenning control etc, has a lower economic yield that does not cover domestic wages and so, does not take place at all. It is why selective ringbarking jobs gave way to ball and chain clearing. The jobs are still there but they do not exist at domestic wage rates. Local workers do not want to do them at lower rates and should not be compelled to do them at lower rates.

Provided they are clearly identified as jobs that are only available at lower rates, and are quarantined from the domestic labour market, then there is no logical reason to prevent someone from a poorer nation from doing that job (for a fixed time) at a rate that makes it worth their while. And those who would preclude such an option while making pronunciamentos on ecological viability, etc, using microchips made by workers on 90 cents an hour, is the grossest hypocrisy.

And to blame farmers for environmental harm while consistently opting to buy imported product that takes even less environmental care in its production, and is therefore cheaper, is also gross hypocrisy. And to proclaim environmental high moral ground while ignoring a market based solution to serious environmental problems shreds all credibility of the proclaimer

Ludwig, all this anecdotal stuff about landholders agreeing with the veg leg is pure departmental spin. Next you'll be trotting out the farmer equivalent of 'the good nigger', you know, the one who takes every injustice as evidence of his diminished status. And who spends his time in gratitude for the wise guidance and modest benevolence of his intellectual and moral superiors. It cuts no mustard with me, buster.

You have spent all your time justifying the need for what has been done but very little time on what has actually been done and the way it has been done. And the way it has been done is beyond disgraceful, it is criminal. Lets get this straight, any flimsy environmental pretext does not justify the use of any means. Almost every day we uncover some new instance of departmental sleaze that has been perpetrated under the pretext of environmental good intentions. All of it by urbane and affable folk who are dedicated to their family and their jobs. And history has repeatedly shown that good ordinary folk need their victims to be demonised before they can bring themselves to cause them harm.

You are no different to the train driver on the Auschwitz line.

Perseus, you wrote; “Ludwig, all this anecdotal stuff about landholders agreeing with the veg leg is pure departmental spin”.

O for goodness sake! It is my personal experience. Nothing to do with any department. You sure can come up drivel.

Can’t you see that making such ridiculous statements as; “…..trotting out the farmer equivalent of the good nigger…” and “You are no different to the train driver on the Auschwitz line” not only does you and your cause absolutely no good at all, but is very destructive to your arguments. It immediately tells all the good level-headed readers of this forum, no matter what their views may be, that you are anything but level-headed.

Perspective Perseus. Perspective instead of extreme polarisation. You have no sense of balance

Lets look at the facts, Ludwig. You are a departmental officer who has spent a great deal of time ignoring the facts relating to the character and scale of clearing, regrowth, thickenning and remnant forest Vs remnant grassland. And in response to the specific evidence of Burrows, SLATS satellite data, remnant data etc you have consistently returned to generalised political statements of opinion.

And in the last few posts you have attempted to paint my views as extreme and far removed from the broader farming community. You even had the gall to imply that there was majority support amongst farmers for the Beattie policy on clearing.

Your claims are totally at variance with the voting figures for Qld. Outside the major coastal cities and mining towns, the community overwhelmingly votes National or independent conservative. Most of these sitting members have two party preferred support of 70% or more. In the purely rural booths that support goes to 80-90%. The green vote, on the other hand, is only 7% in the cities and drops below 4% in the regions. And that 4% rarely even owns a cheap house block let alone a farm.

And in light of this, to venture an opinion that a majority of farmers support the government's approach, excludes self delusion as a credible explanation. It is pure political manipulation and prompts one to ask, exactly how low will you stoop?

The real test would be for you and I to show up at a sale yards somewhere and both repeat what we have said in this trail. And we'll soon see who is drinking the free beer and who is wearing the Tar and Feathers.

Let’s look at the facts, Perseus. I am a departmental officer who has spent a great deal of time in the real world talking to people at the grass-roots level.
I expressed my views totally untinted by the department that I work for or the government it serves. That’s the great advantage to having a nom de plume and hence an almost uninhibited freedom of speech in a world where this is otherwise highly compromised. (See my posting this forum in response to Philip Ruddock’s article of 15/11/05).
In this instance, what I have said is more or less what my department would be happy to hear. But when it comes to overall sustainability, my views are anything but in line with my employer or the government.
So when I say that the many landholders are environmentalists at heart and freely admit it, and the overwhelming majority of landholders can see exactly why tree-clearing restrictions have been implemented and agree in principle, you’d better believe it.
In response to the voting figures you quoted: Just because people vote National doesn’t mean they can’t see environmental reality, and one of the most blatant realities is that the enormous clearing rates could not be allowed to continue. People on the land still vote National largely because it is traditional and also largely because they don’t understand or trust or care too much about what any particular party is offering.
That’s not to belittle rural people – it is the same across our society. It would take some enormous kick in the guts by the Nationals to change this voting pattern. As for the so-called green vote, you would be naïve in the extreme to think that the tiny primary vote for the Greens or Democrats equates to peoples’ environmental concerns. It is much more complex.
I didn’t say that the majority of farmers support the government’s approach. They don’t like any increased restrictions (who does?), but broadly speaking, they can see merit in it, and they ain’t gonna amass in huge protests agin it, as per the impending IR legislation.