They use the same or similar tactics in Russia, don't they?

It would appear that Labor is closer to corrupt communism. Take the land off one person and give it to the party.

Justin, what you have written is correct. We have had land stolen by an insidious method of distancing. We ARE living under dictatorship. We have all been asleep and have been distracted from the events that have been taking place in our legislation. It is a fast world these days and we tend to think that "She'll be right mate". The pollies and the bureaucrats have taken advantage of us and have used our apathy and our lack of truth to carry out an agenda that will eventually destroy Australia as we all know and love it. The Sanctity of Property needs to be restored. We need to contact our local members of parliament and ask questions about how can land be made useless in this manner. Private land and everything on that private land should belong to the owner and a government is overriding the sanctity of property ownership when it legislates to freeze the productivity of that land and then claims a benefit on the world stage. Compensation is not the answer. That's like saying to a thief that they can keep what they stole as long as they then steal from someone else to pay me. Compensation would have to come from taxpayers - that's you and me. I say repeal these unjust laws and thus remove the defacto overlay and there will be no need for compensation. Peter Spencer himself may well have a case for some compensation as he has spent the last 10 years of his life seeking some kind of explaination and some justice. It has taken Peter Spencer and his support team to bring out the truth of what has been happening and it is now up to us all to join together to spread the truth. I wish Peter and his family all the best.

There is a simple way out of this.

The way is to give the land owners the rights to zero interest loans of the same value as the land rights being acquired but require the land owners to invest these loans in ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The loans are to be paid back by from the returns on the investments.

The sorts of things the land owners must invest in would be to plant trees, invest in ways to increase soil carbon sequestration, build solar plants, wind farms, or geothermal power plants. The land owners may or may not use their own land.

This would be done at a benefit to the government because these are loans that will be repaid and the earnings on investment will be taxable. The money can come from the government asking the Reserve Bank to issue the money for the loans at zero interest. The Reserve bank is always giving loans to banks and there is nothing to say that they cannot give zero interest loans to land owners. They may even do it via the banks to keep the banks happy.

The land owners would get new income. With zero interest loans repaid over the life of the investment almost all forms of green house gas reductions become profitable so the land owners would have a new source of income as well as able to repay the loans.

To see the mechanics of how this can be done visit

http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/financing-renewable-energy-with-zero-interest-loans-2/

As the behaviour of the Federal and State governments is motivated by money, the most effective method of protest is to THREATEN THEIR REVENUE STREAMS -- not to threaten one's own life by going on a hunger strike.

Has Mr Spencer, or another affected property owner, ever paid stamp duty on a new vehicle? If so, and if the High Court stands by its own decisions up to Ha v. NSW (1997), that duty was an excise and was therefore unconstitutional (http://tribune.grputland.com/2009/08/wake-up-australia-stamp-duties-on-new.html). If someone successfully sues for a refund of the duty, the States will be obliged to refund all such duties back to the year dot. Ouch!

Of course the Commonwealth might impose a 100% "tax" on such refunds, as it did after tobacco "franchise fees" were struck down in Ha v. NSW. But a similar "tax" on refunds of vehicle duties would be far more dangerous -- politically dangerous because millions of voters would be in line for such refunds, and legally dangerous because vehicle duties are itemized in retail invoices and paid by the final purchasers, so that the final payers are much easier to trace than was the case with tobacco "franchise fees". Inevitably a big fleet buyer would argue that the 100% "tax" is a blatant attempt to enforce a past constitutional breach and is therefore also unconstitutional. Neither the States nor the Commonwealth would want to open that can of worms.

If any affected property owner has paid payroll tax, that may also be unconstitutional (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9813&page=0).

Want to sue the Commonwealth too? Well, if you've ever had to withhold GST or personal income tax, that was arguably a breach of s.82 of the Constitution (http://tribune.grputland.com/2009/06/making-tax-system-comply-with-s82-of.html).

Caveat 1: If landowners expect compensation for government decisions that reduce the value of their land, I hope they're prepared to finance it through a levy on INCREASES in land values. As the overall trend in land values is upward, a modest levy on increases would pay for 100% compensation for reductions.

Caveat 2: I am not a lawyer and the above is not advice.

This story is not about government theft - it's about a part-time, negligent farmer's grandiose dreams and compensation mentality. Mind you, it's not that surprising from Peter Spencer, who spent decades in the PNG highlands acquiring a 'big man'/compensation mentality and ended up being an adviser to corrupt PM Paias Wingti. He was obviously too busy engaging in 'bisnis' in PNG to maintain his marginal farming property.

It's also bordering on mendacious to claim that anti-landclearing laws were enacted by the States at the behest of the Federal government. As I recall, it was a belated response to the rampant environmental destruction wreaked by rapacious farmers on land unsuited to agriculture - resulting in such ecological nightmares as the Murray-Darling disaster.

That the erstwhile Howard government subsequently and disingenuously included regrowth and primary native vegetation in its claim to meet Australia's unratified Kyoto obligations is an indictment on that bunch of environmental vandals. There was no theft, except perhaps of the ecological sustainability of the Australian bush.

It's fascinating how the anti-environmentalists have rallied to Spencer's dubious cause, obviously without knowing much about him and his mismanagement of his property.

CJ Morgan.
So you think it is ok for government to override the sanctity of property ownership. If a government brings in legislation that makes a property unviable by using its power to prevent the landowner from using their property to earn a living then that is theft in my book. The government using its power to lock up millions of hectares of privately bought land.
If government want to do this they should purchase private land, not obtain it by devious legislative means.
Sounds like dictatorship to me. How would you like someone to come to your place and close off some of your rooms and threaten you with fines if you use them.