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.