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