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.