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.

CJ is that just your personal opinion or are there references?

I'm just interested in both sides of this story and also why the press have not been onto it the way they were when some Canberra based eco types had a hunger strike recently.

There were regular updates all day long on "our" ABC. (Are they biased? /sarc, of course)

This person's story seems to be being ignored.

Is it because it is not causeworthy (i.e. not the right eco slant) enough for our media, or is it because there is more to it?

The PNG angle is interesting .. how long was he in PNG?

Peter, along with many other farmers have had their land stolen. No doubt much of this land would never have been cleared anyway, and people like Peter were planning on using part of their land for agroforestry. The point is they cannot use any of their land now.

The story is not about the credibility of Peter Spencer or CJ Morgan, but it most certainly IS about government theft, and government at all levels is complicit in it.

In May 1992 - around the same time the environmentalist's "Earth Summit" was held in Rio - the Commonwealth & States signed an agreement called the "Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment". It states that the principles of ecologically sustainable development "should inform policy making and program implementation".

In NSW at least, the state government wasted no time carrying out this agenda. The Native Vegetation Act was bad enough, but even worse has been the way that these communistic principles have infested the Local Government Act and Environmental Assessment & Planning Act like a cancer, drastically undermining the principle of private property rights. In the case of the NSW EP&A Act, legislation to effect this was introduced in 1997, and one large council was so keen on it that they amended their local environmental plan to comply, 3 weeks before the legislation became law!

For environmentalists and others who believe that individuals should be subservient to the almighty state in pursuit of whatever they declare is in "the public interest", this was nirvana. Now in most of Australia, owners of private property no longer truly own their property; rather, they are now forced to act as custodians and caretakers, bound to follow government-set management plans that are becoming more onerous and restrictive by the month.

It is an absolute outrage the way this has happened, and it must be halted and reversed before we wake up to find ourselves living in the same conditions as those in other countries where private ownership has been abolished, such as Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.

CJ Morgan, regardless of your opinion of Peter Spencer, the fact is that many rural landowners, and in general the 'green' rural landowners have been robbed of land use rights. Most of the so called 'environmental vandals' in the bush cleared the land in accordance with government policy and government requirements in the past (for leasehold, they were told to 'clear it or lose it'. I challenge you to visit a property such as ours to see how ludicrous and unfair the decision re land clearing is. On our property we merely wanted to replace trees with fruit trees.
Fickle Pickle, your ideas may sound good but how does one plant trees when the land purchased for farming cannot be touched (because it has trees on it) yet the landowner cannot claim carbon credits for them.
In Queensland, while the mapping was and still is grossly inaccurate, regrowth was classified as remnant (using dubious criteria), land was locked up for endangered species without compensation (while the Nature Conservation Act provides for compensation) and now regrowth (also incorrectly mapped) is also locked up and Beattie gloated about meeting Kyoto targets...at our expense.
And we are left with an unsaleable farm, where 40% would have been left in its natural state and a $2million+ per annum food producing farm developed! Justice...I think not.

He's hardly being ignored, rpg. Various far-right, farmers', anti-environmental and even Christian groups have this clown's name splattered all over the Internet. About the most comprehensive and balanced discussion I've found is at

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/tower-of-hope-or-vale-of-tears/

Much of Australia's environmental degradation is a direct result of ignorant or greedy farmers and agricultural companies engaging in unsustainable practices like broadscale land clearing for short term gain. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that the excesses of the past aren't repeated in the future, which is why the kinds of environmental rape and pillage that created the disaster that is the Murray-Darling Basin are now heavily restricted.

As for 'ownership' of land, try asserting your 'property rights' if a rich coal seam or gold or uranium deposit is discovered underneath your patch. It seems to me that a vocal minority of rabid right nutters are piggybacking on Spencer's cause to try and reverse environmental legislation that was overdue when it was proclaimed in various States.

Of course, Peter Spencer could have avoided his problems if he'd managed his land instead of just leaving it to its own devices while he was off playing 'big man' in PNG.

Meanwhile we whiteys stole the entire continent from the "aborigines". And most of the rest of the world too. New Zealand, Canada, the USA, South Africa, etc etc.

CJ Morgan, The only point I agree with you is that the Larvatus Prodeo is the "most comprehensive and balanced discussion" available. I recommend you read this comment, link below, #94 & then #96
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/tower-of-hope-or-vale-of-tears/#comment-846322

The remainder of your comment is personal vile, ignorance & prejudice in relation to farmers & management practices.

The core of this issue is not about the virtues of landclearing, nor whether Peter Spencer is a perfect character but whether when many farmers have held a right that has a direct impact on production & income that has been removed with no compensation

Hmmm,
The government is theft crowd are out in numbers early today.
Funny how there was no outrage from the writer and the rest of you mob about Aboriginal land rights and theft when Howard dudded the Aboriginal people with his 10 point plan.
What was that? Oh it's a case of do as a say not as i do.
But hey that won't stop us getting all hot and bothered with confected outrage.

barney25, you have assumed much. Does the trampling on aboriginal peoples in the past mean that modern day wrongs are to be ignored? I think not. As a society we must address all injustices. Does your outrage in regards to Aboriginal land rights extend to a modern day displacement of aboriginal rights in Cape York Peninsula?
"What was that? Oh it's a case of do as a say not as i do."

http://www.cylc.org.au/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=50

“The land council's chairman, Michael Ross, says the rights of Indigenous people are being undermined because too much land is being locked up in pristine areas where economic growth is restricted”

CJ you are correct there is a bit about on this one, I must have missed it while planning various activities over the last few weeks.

Thanks for the link, very informative and eye opening - the comment that still@downfall links to is interesting.

It's not clear whether Peter has done this all as you say, but he does seem to believe and has had advice that has led him to this action.

The action itself is worrying, the Greens and eco types with their tactics have introduced such emotional tools into the community - so every time someone is not happy with government or whomever, we'll now see this sort of behavior.

At least he is not organizing the overthrow of police vans and attacking police lines - nor is he demanding as much as the AGW hunger strikers did in Canberra - new world order no less.

I fear country folk, farmers and landowners are feeling disenfranchised with the system, watching how the AGW, ETS and green crowds behave to get attention. The governments complete lack of sensitivity to this part of the community must contribute to this mess.

Is he right or wrong, don't know but I reckon a lot of people are watching to see how the government deals with this. I suspect it will get bigger before it goes away and PM Rudd is conspicuous by his absence, no surprise there. If it was an actor up there I'm sure he'd be along by now.

Another poor call by the government, they should have dealt with this by now.

fedupnortherner,

The terms of the loan will indicate whether the landholder can use their own land or not.

The principle being advocated is the following - and this applies to aboriginal land as well.

If the "community" through its actions change the rules of ownership that disadvantage an owner then the owner should be compensated. The compensation should be related to reason for the change of rules. For example in the case under discussion the reason for the change is to encourage the sequestration of carbon and reduce the level of ghg in the atmosphere. The compensation should in the form of funding for an investment - either through a zero interest loan or as a grant - but the compensation must be invested to amplify the reason for the change in ownership.

We can use the same principle to compensate fossil fuel power station owners who can build a new asset that will give them income and reduce ghg concentrations.

The same idea can be used for water. Instead of buying back water rights give farmers zero interest loans to "increase" the available water - perhaps by pipes, perhaps by seeding clouds, perhaps by planting different types of water and salt tolerant plants.

This approach is fair to all - both to the person who loses the utility of an asset by replacing the asset with something of equal or better value depending on their investment skill and to the community as a whole who also have rights as a community for land to be used for the best use of all.

It is an example of what is a general solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons".

This is a landmark case under what intended to be numerous forced acquisition of property rights to fulfill AGW agendas based upon mythological carbon pollution theories and inflicted Western guilt.

UN Climate treaties re carbon debts > Federal Govt compliance > State compliance > forced individual land acquisition.

What happens when a country cannot comply? Under a legal treaty some of a country's land is ceded to the UN. No, I'm not joking, I wish I was. That's why we can never sign such a treaty.

This whole thing can be traced back to the UN and its carefully crafted extreme left agenda to rid the world of private property ownership and force countries to cede land to it to pay imaginary carbon debts. All the Carbon Debts will be processed through Carbon Trading companies run by ex UN officials and people like Al Gore who will make billions and acquire huge power as in any Communist system. As you can see we will have no rights.

I used to think this stuff was from the imagination of conspiracy theorists but no, here we are and its really happening.We are all in for a massive battle, so keep your wits about you.

I can understand Peter Spencer's angst. He comes back from OS to find his land has become overgrown and that he can no longer cut it back for farming.

There are only two ways to prevent overgrazing and irresponsible land clearing practices.

If you use the current government regulation approach by preventing farmers to use their land as it was intended in the original purchase then I cannot see why we cannot pay farmers for their carbon. This happens already with carbon credits for other purchases such as solar. Afterall we all benefit in environmental terms.

Obviously trusting farmers not to overclear land is not fullproof, although many do now grow swathes of trees on the perimeter and in patches for many good reasons (shade, tree farming and soil conditioning) that pay dividends as well.

There is nothing worse than seeing animals in a paddock on a hot day all vying to get under the one small tree on the property or sweltering in the heat where none exist.

There is another way. Keep some land for public ownership and plant trees especially in areas where land has been degraded. There are many good environmental groups like the Bush Heritage Fund and Landcare that support this sort of work. Much of it could be done voluntarily or under a Work for the Dole/Green Corps program. It would have spin-off benefits for smaller communities and country towns.

I come back to what I said on the other thread - if we can compensate big business why not small-medium entities such as farmers. Compensation does not have to be in the form of direct cash but perhaps a tax offset.

There has to be a workable solution.

Mate! This guy Pete seems serious about staying up there so I think Kevin should go and see him he doesn't mind giving into the blackmail demands of asylum seekers. At least he would come down and could have a feed and Rudd could look like a good bloke. Imagine a new australian was making this protest someone would be right onto it!

I'm actually concerned for his health

Sigh- can someone fill me in on what the specific problem is? I'm not sure I could stomach going through another one of these articles trying to find the POINT at the moment.

The problem with Justin is he only touches what's specifically wrong (after a long tear-jerking story to build it up) as but an integrated part of the overall "crime" of property owners having to obey the LAW at the expense of making extra money.

Quite frankly, the concept of forcing people to change their practices for the sake of "Carbon trading" is rubbish (like penalizing farting cows or mulesing)- but having laws preventing excessive land-clearing practices and forcing owners to be a little less destructive to the environment in their work practices is perfectly fine.

If it's causing a major loss to farmers who simply cannot use an alternative practice, then it should be discussed- as should any seriously flawed interviention criteria/method.

Compulsory acquisition should probably be banned (or at least require a referendum) as it has been abused by governments in the past for personal gain (eg selling public facilities to private developers for the land value).

But so far even the comments have so far not actually touched a specific problem supporting the cause against the right of a government to intervene- except the post I just made. Which is pretty sad.

The reality is that the government has been stealing land from land owners for many years. Both my grandmothers had land "resumed" under questionable means, with no compensation. One was told during world war two that if her hundreds of acres weren't fenced by a certain date, her land would be confiscated by the government and resold. Her husband had died and three of her sons were serving overseas in the war. The other son was too young to do the fencing, my mother was female and a teenager, my grandmother was too poor to buy the materials. The government took the land, and onsold the land.
The other grandmother (her husband was also deceased), owned a considerable acreage in the Terry Hills area. The government told her they wanted her land for the purpose of "Crown Land". They offered to pay her a fraction of the value of the land, she refused, so the government took the land anyway.

I see Peter Spencer's plight as very similar. They have made his land virtually unusable and have metaphorically "taken" his land from him, with no compensation.

I'm sorry, but this country doesn't have a tree shortage. I hike through the bush on a regular basis. I love the bush, but go and stand on the top of mount Warning and the thousands of other mountains around Australia (including Tasmania, Mr Brown) and gaze out over the vast expanses of trees and native vegetation, as far as the eye can see in any direction. It is hogwash to say that we need to take privately owned land that has been previously farmland and return it to its' natural state.

We get the government for whom the majority vote. I'm more than glad that I am NOT responsible for installing the current government. They have raped our surplus, they have raped our farmers, they have ignored the flood victims and Mr Rudd flies all over the world with reckless disregard for his greenhouse emissions. Well done!

Good luck Mr Spencer.

We have some very nasty people in Australia as this story and the posts on this article attest. The nastiest of all are those who are the hatchet men, the sanctimonious and supposedly well educated people who sit on the benches of the courts, established by both the State and Federal Governments since 1970. These are the real nasties, because the other nasties like CJ Morgan, Bob Carr, Craig Knowles, Ted Egan and even John Brumby, and his cohorts, would be stopped in their tracks, and Peter Spencer could come down, if instead of chasing underage boys, and committing suicide rather than face court, a singe Judge became an honest man or woman.

The evidence is overwhelming and a man from Sydney has put it all together, in a collection of about 110 pages, proving conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Constitution of Australia should protect Peter Spencer, Mrs Burns, and a whole host of other victims of legal debauchery.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has legislated to make amends, but it also legislated on Malcolm Turnbull’s watch, as Environment Minister to make a remedy impossible to get from the Federal Court of Australia. Bob Hawke’s watch made the High Court a useless and ineffective, fearful and timid institution, and the Director of Public Prosecutions a dishonest and criminal organization.

The nasties, include Police both Federal and State who are intimidated and fearful of the lawyers who pull the strings of the puppets on every court bench in Australia. Henry J Abraham, a Jewish American Scholar, wrote a textbook entitled THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. One of that book’s chapters is entitled Judicial Review: the Supreme Power. You may find an extract here. http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238 You may buy the whole book, but you will not find this ultimate truth taught at Australian Universities. The battle between Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd for the Christian centre that controls Australian Politics, will be won by the first one to go and see Peter Spencer. Peter is entitled to have S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 enforced. Read it here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=520 Come on down

By my name you all know I am a practicing Christian. Spencer is a Christian too. I have spent the last six years, seeking the reason why Australia is not a just and fair society. It is because the Atheists and Agnostics, conmen and spivs, University Professors, and even clergymen, have no idea how important the messages in the Holy Bible really are.

KR has said sorry twice. Once to five hundred thousand abused children, and once to the original Australians. Perhaps in tears, after the next federal election, he will say sorry to the rest of us. Tony Abbot is right. Every child should have the Holy Bible taught, just as Shakespeare is taught as the foundation of English Law, as a work of great literary merit. If that happens, Australia has a chance.

The Holy Bible teaches that authority comes from Almighty God. So should our law. The Supreme Court should be a place where the will of the Supreme Being is found, not a place where thieves and conmen can get a rubber stamp on their thievery. The University of New South Wales Law School should be renamed the School of Common Thieves. Many of the Judges who have brought about Peter Spencer’s plight are graduates. Two even claimed to be Christian.

People were impressed by KR because he was seen as more Christian than JH. He was the only Labor leader to realize that Australia is un-governable without the support of the Christian majority. Government in the end comes out of a court. The High Court of Parliament proposes, but the real courts dispose, and everyone is a judge. The word Court is alien to the covenants of promise, and the word court represented a grass roots political meeting with the ultimate power. The Parliament of the Commonwealth says the prayer, from Matthew 6:9-13, every day it sits. It is the Supreme Parliament, but it’s State equivalents would have you believe we live in the United States of Australia. Without juries, a court is a Court, illegal and criminal. Peter Spencer has never had a court

I think the issue here is that a guy has been up a pole trying to get the attention of the prime minister to address an injustice that he feels. Why can't he just go and see him? this guy is an Australian tax payer who doesn't want to go through the proper legal channels cos that route is predestined to the failure of his cause. he just wants to see the manager

Sorry punkrose, I have to make a correction:
"We get the government for whom the majority vote"
Actually we don't- you'll find in the 2007 Federal elections Labor only got 43% of the vote- it's merely the fact that Liberals only got 36% and each other party got less that 'qualified' Labor's largest minority to rule the remaining 57% of us who voted against them.

You'll only find governments actually getting in by majority from countries in Europe whose law states that the top parties MUST form coalitions after the election and serve together until a certain % level of representation has been reached.

The Gumment: “King Hazza, notwithstanding thy royal styles and titles, we are going to take off you the right to use your house, and leave you with the liability to pay taxes on it. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, you can just die, or we could lock you up in a cage, how does that sound? We have to take it, you understand, for a very important social purpose – but not so important that we will actually pay for it.”

King Hazza “Oh that’s fine, go right ahead. I’ll just bend right over and take it up the backside like a slave. After all, it’s the LAW.”

Fool.

King Hazza, I stand by my comment that we get the government for whom the majority vote. I agree that our voting system is cumbersome and flawed, but if the voting citizens of Australia took the time to vote from one to sixty something, their preferences may well have altered the outcome. However, as most people vote for the absolute minimum, the final outcome is the result of to whom the preferences the other parties elect for their preferences to be distributed. The labour party was the winner by the ommission of the general public taking the time to select their own preferences.

Peter Spencer's plight, however, should not be minimised or digressed from over the political issue of who is currently in power. I believe the laws of this land are, in fact, in desperate need of overhauling, if it is possible for a private land owner with freehold title to be dictated to as to what they can and can't do on their property, IF that property was previously, legally, being used at any stage for a particular purpose. I believe the land in question had previously been cleared for agricultural purposes. It should therefore still be allowed to be cleared for the same purpose. That goes for other properties too. We have ample old growth forests, national parks, state forests and other forms of protected pockets of land, lots of which abound with noxious weeds such as the "protected pocket" on my property, which is rife with lantana, crofton weed, broad leafed pepper trees and kidzu weed. We are not supposed to do any form of clearing within this pocket, at risk of fines of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fortunately our cows love to wander through this and trash the undergrowth, as do the feral deer. This keeps the fire hazard from this precious, protected pocket to a minimum.

Perhaps Peter Spencer could run some cows on his land and just let them eat and trash away. Eventually he might end up with some cleared land by default!

Indeed punkrose you make a compelling case.

To be honest I actually am surprised you would not be allowed to clear weeds from a reserve- considering the goverment put a lot of effort into trying to get volunteers to do exactly that.

As for land previously cleared for farming still retaining such clearance rights- I'd generally see this as perfectly fine, unless some dire need (no idea what) demands that this be overwritten.

But as I said, I'm actually against governments taking control of private property- and not so sure they should even be allowed to initiate it themselves, as I'm also well aware of their capacity to excersise this power for outright corrupt purposes (like personal profits- let alone dubious causes such as carbon markets).

Peter Spencer was forced to use lawyers, because the monopoly protects itself. He has been sold out by all except one of his lawyers, and his land is locked up because the monopoly controls the game, so that they have favors to sell. This is an under the table black market commodity, and will remain so and valuable until S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 is enforced.

Why is S 22 important. It is important because it requires a Royal Identifier, to be obtained from a Supreme Court before any law can be enforced. I have a letter dated 2003, on which the Supreme Court in New South Wales affixed a Royal Identifier. It has none on its Letterhead today. There is no Royal Identifier on the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 or the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and none of these Courts now issue process in the name of the Queen.

This is an old law, say the lawyers. Its not relevant say the lawyers. It will cost too much, say the lawyers, but lawyers are liars. Truth and Justice are one and the same, and when lawyers in Parliament gave a lawyer in Court the power to declare what is truth, and what is not, corruption became entrenched.

In 1372 the English banned practicing lawyers and Sheriffs from Parliament. The decline of the English democracy started in 1870 when they repealed that law for England only. It disqualified lawyers who were practicing at the time of their election from Parliament. Julia Gillard would go, Malcolm Turnbull would go, Philip Ruddock would go, I think Joe Hockey would go, but Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd would stay. Lindsay Tanner would go, but Brendan O’Connor would stay, because some have a law degree but never took the fatal step of becoming a practicing lawyer.

I don’t totally agree with Peter Spencer, but I do agree that truth and justice is what he really wants. I do know he has been treated unjustly. A commitment to the rule of law by KR should be enough. Enough of racketeers.

I think what Peter Spencer needs is a "good" lawyer (and I use the term loosely), who is prepared to undertake the fight on Peter's behalf, pro bono.

There would be huge advertising advantage for the law firm who backed this lawyer and I'm sure there would be plenty of Aussies angry enough about the whole situation to donate time and money to the cause if this could be organised.

The biggest hurdle would be to find a "good" lawyer (as in skilled enough and virtuous enough), with the "heart" to go the pro bono line.

I think what Spencer needs is a good psychiatrist, rather than any sort of lawyer.

Mind you, it occurs to me that the situation which has apparently driven him to engage in his silly stunt could best be alleviated by issuing carbon credits to landholders who voluntarily or compulsorily grow native trees on their land. They could then trade those with the big carbon emitters like coal-fired power stations and be 'compensated' that way, from those who directly benefit.

Oh hang on - that would require something like an ETS, wouldn't it? Of course, agriculture couldn't be exempt - as the failed Rudd government legislation proposed - because that would be double-dipping. However, smart farmers could offset their emission liabilities by engaging in environmentally friendly practices that would attract carbon credits.

It also occurs to me that none of the agricultural and forestry vandals who created ecological disasters such as we see in the Murray-Darling Basin have been required to compensate anybody for their destructive activities - either other farmers who live downstream from them or general taxpayers who must foot the bill for remedial measures. And we won't talk about the millions of dollars extracted from ordinary Australian taxpayers annually in order to pay unsustainable farmers drought relief.

Theft is theft. The Federal Government have used the State Government via devious legislation to destroy the incomes of thousands of Australians under the pretense of environmental caring.
There is a bigger picture and our Government is not telling us the truth. Divide and conquer. Send everyone broke by placing them in a position whereby they spend thousands of dollars defending their basic right to own their land free from bureaucracy.
I google a lot and I find that there has been a planned process to gradually remove land ownership world wide.
Ask yourself what is Communism. Communism has changed it's name these days so as we are not aware of what is actually happening. Environmentalism and Green are the new arms of communism plus all the politically correct ideology. This is a war that has been going on behind the scenes with pens and treaties. Wake Up people. What happened to the Communists? They just infiltrated the Political System and found ways to reach their agenda under the radar.

C'mon guys lets not turn this into a paranoid Communist conspiracy theory. Both the far right and far left have histories of confiscating land so let's not get too carried away with Left/Right dogma.

Peter Spencer already has a good lawyer who is working pro bono. The fellow whose name escapes me was interviewed by Alan Jones on the link that was given on the other thread in General articles. He was an would-be-Liberal candidate who did not win pre-selection over Turnbull at the time.

Pelican, you are correct this is not about left or right politics. It is about theft of private property by whatever government. Private land in fee simple title is the backbone of freedom. If you believe in freedom in Australia, then no amount of spin will change that fact.
One of the tenets of Communism is to remove ownership of property around the world. It is in the Communist Manifesto. That seems to be what is happening at the present moment in Australia, our land ownership is being attacked by legislation.
And Pelican, there are politicians that have an agenda that fits right in with the removal of our land ownership.

4freedom you said "And Pelican, there are politicians that have an agenda that fits right in with the removal of our land ownership."

Possibly, but not in Australia. Can you really see the ALP or the Liberals in Australia as too Left Wing or Communist? I don't see either the Liberl/Nationals or the ALP as advocating the removal of property rights in its rawest form. There will always be some regulations in all things to protect others or for the common good - the question is how far do we go and what regulations should be put in place.

Look, I happen to agree with Peter Spencer's concerns because farmers should not have to take on the full burden of the Kyoto Protocol targets without some financial assistance.

Another example: John Howard was accused of a land grab after the NT Intervention - while not a Howard supporter I will grant that I don't think his Government did it for those reasons. I think that Mal Brough at the time really thought the Intervention would help Indigenous Australians after the release of the Little Children are Sacred Report.

One honest Christian Judge, in any one of the many Supreme Courts around Australia could give Peter Spencer the incentive to come down from his eyrie, have a good feed, and take the fight right up to the devils governing this country.

It has to be an honest Christian Judge, who fears the Lord, and has a Royal Identifier as his stamp, so that he can place a Royal Identifier on a Writ, issue it from a court, and call the Australian Government to account, and at the same time destroy all the Satanic State Governments that currently support every corrupt and unconscionable State Judge throughout Australia. If you exist Mr Judge, you van serve the Lord, and the Lord knows you are needed as never before.

An honest Christian Judge would know he cannot substitute himself for Almighty God. Every Judge Peter Spencer has had has been an Almighty God Pretender, and the Satanic Forces emanating out of State and Federal Parliaments, have given all these God Pretenders, the power but no glory. As Pierre Schlag, the Professor of Jurisprudence at Denver Colorado Univesity said, “A Judge is the most violent person in society, but never dirties his own hands.” That is why Jesus Christ condemned them in the Gospel of Luke 11:46. If you are a Christian and know a Supreme Court Judge anywhere in Australia who is an honest man, then let him come out of the closet and be counted. The power of one is enough. Just one Honest Judge, in the thousand or so who are roaming Australia is all Spencer needs.

It could be one of the six in Tasmania, or one of the four who regularly serve in Canberra, It could be one out of the seven on the High Court. It could be one of the forty nine in New South Wales, or even be a Victorian Judge, but he or she must be a Christian and honest.

As a Christian the Judge would know that a court must call a jury together to divine the will of Almighty God. Its magical

The Honest Judge would simply say, “Put up a Feigned issue to test the Australia Act 1986.” I will hear it. Knock over the Australia Act 1986, and the whole Satanic House of Cards Legal Profession slave-dom that is Australian Government today will collapse. Feigned Issues are still legislated for in Queensland, so by S 118 Constitution any Judge, anywhere in Australia is authorized to try one.

What is really sad is that some Churches even tolerate these evil dishonest Satanic bums in suits within their congregations. They had the power to excommunicate any dishonest Judge, in 1900, from the Churches that enjoyed a monopoly on the appointment of Judges. That kept the bastards honest. It was not the Democrats, it was the preacher-men.

Knock over the Australia Act 1986, with a feigned issue, cut off the cohones of State Parliaments and then knock over the restrictive trade practices that have caused Peter Spencer to be marooned on a pole 5000 feet above Canberra, and Australia will again be the wonderful place to live in that I was born into.

Sunday is the third of January 2010. If you are going to church, and there are still more people going to church this weekend than will go to the football or cricket, pray for one honest Christian Judge. Today in Australia, the Judge is one of the people who listened to Satan, but Jesus Christ rejected his temptations. Follow me and all this will be given to you. ( Matthew 4:9) Today in Australia everyone must worship Satan, in the synagogues erected by the nine Satanic States, that are heavily into stealing.

Traffic fines are stealing. So about a Billion dollars is going begging in New South Wales alone as people silently protest. Two billion dollars is stolen in New South Wales every year with Land Tax. Victoria is currently planning to steal off every land owner, with a special tax on land. Come on , seek and you shall find. Find Peter Spencer his one honest Judge. Don’t let him die in despair Give him hope on his tower.

It's about time all Australians are given a chance to vote the Labor governments out of power, we do not want to be governed by incompetant, communists who do not have any concern for our lifestlye. Peter Spencer bought HIS land to make a living in a peaceful manner. With a growing population who is going to feed us if all the farms are taken away? What is the motive behind this? If we don't do something about the unjust law and censoreship in this great country we will lose our freedom and dictator Rudd will control everyone. When television stations are not covering an injustice such as this you have to wonder who owns the media in Australia?

It raises two basic questions:
1. are there values over and above human values? If so, how would we know them apart from the speaker's arbitrary opinion and vested interests?
2. how could a government power to manage the environment be limited, even conceptually, let alone in practice?

As the article's critics in this thread have failed to answer these questions, and obviously can't, they have lost on the general issue, and are just engaging in evasion and flapping their gums.

It is not so much a term of abuse, as a term of description, to call them totalitarians, because envisage no limit on the power of government. What else is totalitarian supposed to mean?

Also, fascism is not 'right wing', it's just another species of socialism. "Nazi" stands for 'national socialist'. They are socialists, which our home-grown totalitarians, the self-called 'centre left' never seem to understand.

Either these Australian totalitarian fascists are being deliberately dishonest, or they are literally so stupid they don't understand what they are talking about.

Jardine K. Jardine,

It is only in the last year or so that I have heard anyone attempt to describe the Nazis as left-wing. For the 70 years prior to that, they had been regarded – correctly - as extreme right-wingers.

The fact that the Nazis had the word “socialist” in their name means as much as the fact that the communists called their dictatorships “The People’s Democratic Republic of...” even though there was nothing democratic about them and the “people” used to try to escape from them. The Nazis were not socialists. They did not nationalise industry. They centralised political power but were quite content to allow economic wealth to remain in the hands of business.

In the early years there was a socialist stream in the Nazi Party. Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA, was one who called for a “second revolution” against business. He, along with others, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, 30 June, 1934. Hitler had no intention of implementing the Nazi party’s socialist promises. He needed the army, the banks and business on his side. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

Hitler was not democratically elected. His party won more votes than any other, but less than an absolute majority. He gained power because the Nationalists, another party of the right, decided to join forces with him in the mistaken belief that they could control him. His Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag with the support of the Cathoic Centre Party - to that group’s everlasting shame - after all the Communist representatives had been arrested so that they could not vote. The only party to oppose the Enabling Act was the Socialist Party; in other words, it was a party on the left that stood for democracy in that time and place. Once the Enabling Act had been passed, there was no more democracy.

"They did not nationalise industry."

Yes they did - in substance but not in name. Agreed, they didn't nationalise it in the way that the Russians did, i.e. abolish legal title to capital goods.

But they did nationalise it in the sense that they left legal title to capital goods in private hands, and then dictated any aspect of production, including what to produce, how to produce, wage rates, prices, quantities, etc. To put it in legal terms, they didn't nationalise the legal title, but they nationalised the equitable title - ie the use-rights. They certainly didn't recognise private property rights and invididual liberty on principle as circumscribing a limit to legitimate government action, so what is it supposed to mean to say they were "right wing"? People's property rights - their real, substantive use-rights, not the name on the title deed - amounted to nothing but whatever was left after the state took and did whatever it wanted.

By naming this same characteristic in contemporary Australian left-wing poltiics, I am not merely attempting to scandalise or slander. I'm pointing it out so as to ask Australians to have a good hard think about what they believe in.

The defining characteristic of socialism of all kinds, is the attempt to replace decision-making based on private property and individual freedom in a particular field, with the presumed wisdom of government central planners, which both the Nazis and social democrats have in common.

This can only go one way - to unlimited government. Social democracy is just totalitarian government by instalments. They fact social democrats don't like it is irrelevant.

Unless the terms left and right wing denote some substantial difference as to the role of government and private property - not just totalitarian dictatorships at either end of the range - they are empty of explaining power and only go to obscure the real class struggle in issue - between those who get their wealth by peaceful production and exchange, and those who get it by violence and threats.

I'm sorry to say that I don't see how these comments are of any help to those who are having their land ownership and usage rights threatened by the powers that be, whether they are left, right, or straight down the centre.
This is Australia and our rights are being removed by stealth. It appears that the tangled web of legislation is becoming more intricate and less fathomable by the day! What to do? How indeed does one get an answer that is absolute?
The local council can rule on clearing, the land of environment can give another ruling and the national parks and wildlife can overrule them all! Now the Rural Fire Service is making it financially impossible for anyone to build within a bulls roar of a few trees!
There is a proposed bypass to go around our town. The majority of the people made it abundantly clear that they wanted a far western bypass that in effect took the trucks and through traffic away from our town and the satellite villages to the north. This was rejected. Not because it was too costly, but because there were 5 separate government departments controlling various sections of the peoples favoured route. There was no chance that 5 government departments were going to come to any agreement with each other, it was far easier to take privately owned property from the people. They have held some of these land owners in limbo for YEARS - unable to sell their properties because nobody would buy a property in a proposed highway pathway. Those properties that have been purchased to date have been so devalued by this whole scenario, that owners are just taking whatever is offered in order to move on with their lives.
How do people like Peter get a fair deal so they can make use of their land for the purpose of making a living?

Punkrose

Good question. It's looking more and more like they have to secede from Australia, because as the above discussion shows, they are faced with an insatiable creed of total government control, endlessly growing and feeding like parasites on the productive population. Obviously the Constitution, the Courts, and begging politicians doesn't work.

People, our politicians do not care for you or I. They care only for money they make off multinationals. They will make policies that puts all of us on the streets if they could profit from it.

What my Grandfather fought for when he fired his gun in anger at the Japanese, was sold off by the Baby Boomer Generation who wanted money now and quick.

Spider, I don't quite agree with you there, how about this .. so that it covers the current federal government.

"People, our politicians do not care for you or I. They care only for money they make off multinationals, and the UNIONS (See how much money the ALP got during the last election)"

There needs to be sanctity of private property. A good start would to be to get rid of the Native Vegetation Act, that removes our property rights by stealth. Then we need to check out any other Acts such as the Bushfire Act and other similiar Acts that are in contradiction to ownership of property without interference. If landowners are wanting to protect their property from threats of fire they should not be restricted from clearing any land that they consider a threat.
Politicians have to have numbers to be re-elected or elected. So where are the numbers who are prepared to not vote for some of these politicians. Put the standing member last if he/she has not listened. Write to your politicians, phone them up, email them. Make it known to them that you will not vote for them again if they don't listen.

The author a lawyer, is also an economic libertarian and a landowner at Kybeyan, in close proximity to Peter Spencer’s property.

I do not think this article passes the sniff test.

Mr Jefferson advises that Mr Spencer’s property is 12,000 acres. Mr Spencer advises that “because of the tremendous hilly nature of it, it's probably about 20,000 acres in actual area and the cleared portion would be about 1,800 acres.”

Peter Spencer purchased his property in 1980, however, the Native Vegetation Conservation Act was not passed until 1997. In 2002 the Auditor General’s office performed an audit of the regulation of clearing of native vegetation. They reported that alleged breaches of the legislation were increasing and that the regulatory system was ineffective.

The Government reviewed its strategy and in 2003 introduced three new Acts (2003 Acts) which confirmed the ‘Government’s commitment to end broadscale clearing (clearing of any remnant vegetation or protected regrowth) to maintain productive landscapes,’

Operation of the 2003 Acts and Regulations did not commence until December 2005.

Simply put, the Native Vegetation Conservation Act was not effectively enforced until some twenty five years after the ill-prepared Mr Spencer purchased his property.

During February 2007, the NSW Coalition vowed to scrap native vegetation rules that seek to end broadscale land clearing.

In July 2007, Spencer, a leader in the Commonwealth Property Protection Association was complicit in the destruction of thousands of trees by farmers who wilfully chopped down trees each day in a campaign of civil disobedience against Federal and State Governments and their vegetation management acts.

This extreme act of vandalism occurred despite the fact that clearing of native vegetation is directly responsible for soil and water salinity and contributes to higher temperatures, decreased rainfall and more intense droughts.

Nevertheless, it appears that the rule of a few farmers is to liberate "free" or private enterprise from any regulations imposed by governments, no matter how much ecological damage this causes.

Mr Spencer may be entitled to some form of compensation, however, a sustainable environment and anarchists promoting a radical capitalistic ideology are poor bedfellows indeed.

Thanks Protagaras. I've only become aware in the past couple of days that Peter Spencer was one of the ringleaders of the so-called 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' in 2007. What an idiot.

This guy and his supporters are why farmers have a bad reputation.

Yes CJ Morgan – I daresay I am in agreement. Dangerous people currently in Australia include a select group of farmers afflicted with a God complex who do not support the use of regulatory processes and refuse to acknowledge that the failure of past governments to order the repair of environmental damage caused by their industry has had profound ecological consequences.

A similar failure was recognised by Lieutenant Philip Gidley King as far back as 1803 when he realised that the clearing of riverbanks by landholders on the Hawkesbury River had increased the damage caused by floods. As a result, he prohibited the clearing of cedars on private land abutting the river and ‘earnestly recommended’ that the occupiers of this land replant those trees.

Several early colonists were alive to the importance of environmental protection and planning only to be overruled by those concerned with short-term personal gain rather than the long-term collective interests. The empirical evidence reveals that self-regulation has been a catastrophic failure.

For those who seek justice for Peter Spencer, I would advise that they first lobby to prosecute the “two thousand” farmers who chopped down Australia’s trees in spite. After all, agriculture uses 70% of Australia’s stored water, occupies some 60% of Australia’s land mass and currently contributes a mere 4% to our GDP.

Peter the Believer tells us that Mr Spencer is a Christian. Mr Spencer’s beliefs were not part of the Christian ethos taught to children of my generation:

http://www.blogotariat.com/node/186295

Jardine K. Jardine,

The Australian ran a series on the Left last year, which is worth reading. I do not accept your definition of socialism, which seems to move way beyond government ownership to any government intervention in the economy for the purposes of equity – however defined - and to include military dictatorships of all sorts. Correct me if I am wrong.

Well researched Protagorus. However, regardless of the man (Peter Spencer) there needs to be a discussion about who takes on the financial burden of these environmental protection regulations.

If your reports are accurate, the wilfull cutting down of trees in protest against vegetation regulations would not help Peter Spencer's cause no matter how sound the premise of his current actions.

Farmers need to come on side if we are to reduce land clearing and encourage tree planting. Smart farmers are reaping the benefits of treed areas on their land - much of it is about education. I am not sure that forcing farmers to give up farming land (income) is the way without some form of compensation.

Reducing carbon emissions should require a relatively equal contribution from us all without the burden falling on one sector to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets (if this was the case).

CJMorgan. The trees were on private land not on public land.

Protagoras. I don't quite get the connection between farmers with a God complex not supporting regulation.

Private land is only 13% of all the land in Australia. But when Government have an agenda to use farmers land as a carbon sink and treat farmers as an easy target then something is clearly wrong. I myself believe that the carbon sink theft from farmers is not the only problem. There is a bigger picture evolving and that is New World Order. Lord Monckton pointed this out after reading the Draft Copenhagen Document that clearly included World Government There are steps that have to be taken to achieve NWG and removing land ownership by insidioius means is one of those steps. People are waking up to what has been and is still happening.

Hi Pelican

I think the objections to the current state of freehold agricultural land presents a paradox because fixing one problem while causing another is not progress.

Effective land management can be seen in BushBank WA, established in August 2001 by a consortium of WWF Australia, Department of Conservation & Land Management, WA Landcare Trust and the National Trust of Australia (WA). It operates by purchasing, covenanting and on-selling bushland properties to a conservation-oriented owner.

All BushBank properties are sold with a conservation covenant negotiated as a condition of sale with added incentives.

Farmers currently restricted from developing tracts of land are entitled to compensation. Perhaps the value should be subject to their intentions for that land. However, society is entitled to a trade off which would be to legislate for this unregulated industry to be held accountable for polluting, particularly beyond their boundaries, in line with other pollutant industries.

I am reminded of the farmers during 2007 who declared they would only cease polluting the GBR if the government gave them $150 million. ETS aside, does anyone know of any other industry that is rewarded by governments for not polluting?

4freedom – that “13%” freehold is good creative accounting considering Australia has ten deserts (and expanding due to soil erosion and dryland salinity!) Please bear in mind too that arable land is just 6.25% of Australia’s land mass and diminishing. Examples of the freehold realities are:

Freehold: WA 10%, Queensland 20%, NSW: 33%. Tasmania 40%, Victoria 66% (on which more than 94% of forest cover has been cleared.) The area of leased and licensed land in Victoria is a small portion of the total area given over to freehold or owner occupied farms in Victoria (much of the land and waterways seriously degraded.)

I fail to see the global conspiracy to which you refer.

Protagaras. How did the land become arable in the first place. Trees were cut down, the land was ploughed and then agriculture occurred. If we want to take away from Australia the small amount of farmland that we have and return it all to nature as you seem to promote in a lot of your posts, then where do we get our food supply from. Overseas I suppose you will say. Well no matter where you get the food from you have to have the arable land to do this. So to want to persecute the farmers to a point where they give up farming because of all the legislation that attempts to destroy the industry is totally UnAustralian. To send our agriculture industry overseas as we have done with all our other industries is playing into the hands of the New World Order. There is plenty of proof that the New World Order is on the agenda of many powerful people. Do some googling you fool.

"Do some googling you fool."

4freedom

Australia is a trading country that feeds 55 million people. For the sake of sustainability and the remediation of these arid lands, we need to reduce that number by trading in less eco-destructive commodities and thus ensuring our self-sufficiency.

Please read more and try to keep up.

There are a number of supporters of Peter Spencer who support violence as a method of assisting to deal with this situation - check out some of the comments on the agmates discussion site regarding same. I would encourage people not to support this type of conflict resolution, if these adults are behaving this way, as seen on channel 7 the other night - bashing the car of a politician who at least bothered to go to the property and discuss the issue with the protesters, then what resolution can there be? What do they want? to beat all the pollies up? What sort of moral code is this? Stay away from the supporters, don't get too close to them physically, or you may end up in the firing/punching line if you happen to verbalise a different view or suggest another way.
They look and act like a dangerous bunch of people to me

Coming from the country, and also over the past 30 years I have travelled extensively throughout Western NSW, Southern Qld, Vic and SA I am absolutely amazed by the extent of the damage done to this country by the miss-use and land abuse done by some farmers. Most have done this out of ignorance, but now, this is no excuse.

Frankly, my concern is not for us, here and now, but for the future of my grandson Joshua; that he may still be able to enjoy the view of a Ghost Gum, a wattle and the beautiful wild flowers that define Australia as a unique gift.