"It is no answer to say that the laws are to protect native vegetation. Native vegetation is not an ecological category: it is an historical and aesthetic category. It means species that were here before 1788, that is all. The issue is not native vegetation itself: it is whether some people should be able to indulge their fancy of having a “pre-1788” botanical museum imposed on other people’s property, paid for by the subject property-holders, or by the productive portion of the population under compulsion"

There is no comment to a troglodyte who would make such a statement.

You loose all credibility right there.

Do not look at both sides of the coin, for when minted, they all look the same. Look instead at the marks, dints and scratches, for it is the imperfections that tell the story.

I don't even know where to begin this piece was so ignorant and just wrong. The glib demonising of environmentalists is just stupid - there are an incredible variety of greenies from all walks of life. To characterise any greenie as suggesting the elimination of farming and replacing it with vegetation is just inane. That said, the notion that food production in Australia treats the land well is equally inane. Farmers for a variety of reasons have hammered the land. Most of the major environmental problems in Australia are a result of poor land use. We can reduce inputs, we can improve soil, we can increase diversity, improve water quality and quantity, increase production etc through a variety of measures. Regulating the way we produce food is not about pitting farmers against the environment, it's about creating a farming culture that supports our life support systems - food, water, soil. Native veg laws were absolutely justified. Rather than fighting about compensation (which is legally really doubtful), the discussion should be about pricing of food and why farmers get less and less for their food; why farmers are increasingly leaving the land - the problem isnt greenies - it's the big boys such as Coles and Woolies that have made farmers into modern serfs. If farmers received a decent wage for producing decent food (and that is a long thread in itself, then regulations that protect our other life support systems wouldn't be an issue.

next: a breath of fresh air.

although this "it's the big boys such as Coles and Woolies" is easily fixed. When I Coles and Woolies took o'seas sourcing to extremes I started using the old Green Grocer, the better Fruit and Veg. Hey there are a lot of Con The Fruitier out there, great people, service and a smile. The big boys will change if we boycott them.

As for the rubbish of this article, amazing, they (the farmers) ask scientists to develop weedicides, herbicides, pesticides; to ask them to study nature and ignore what they (the farmers) don't want to hear, is another "cide", suicide.

The day of enlightenment is near, whether we like it or not.

The plight of Peter Spencer is the result of demands by society on an individual land owner, although Peter is just one of many landowners that have been impacted by international agreements signed by the Federal Government on behalf of society such the convention on biological diversity or the Kyoto Protocol that have seen States introduce legislation controlling the clearing of native vegetation.

In 2004, the Productivity commission completed its inquiry into the impacts of native vegetation and biodiversity regulations. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/nativevegetation/docs/finalreport

Two key recommendations by the Commission apply to Mr Spencer’s situation and are echoed in Justin Jefferson’s article that argues that social co-operation is fairest when based on respect for individual freedom. These are:
Landholders should bear the costs of actions that directly contribute to sustainable resource use (including, for example, land and water quality) and hence, the long-term viability of agriculture and other land-based operations, and
Over and above agreed landholder responsibilities, additional conservation apparently demanded by society (for example, to achieve biodiversity, threatened species and greenhouse objectives), should be purchased from landholders where intervention is deemed necessary and cost-effective.

The Government responded by agreeing that these additional biodiversity conservation services sought by the community should generally be purchased from landholders, where intervention is deemed necessary and cost-effective.
At the time the Federal government stated its position that, prior to the removal of landholders’ rights, State and Territory governments must consult fully with landholders and any other interested parties and meet any legal requirements for direct compensation to property rights holders.

While management of native vegetation and biodiversity is primarily the responsibility of State governments, the Federal Government has over the last three decades taken action to conserve and manage biodiversity by seeking agreement of the States or using its legal authority ( e.g. Regional Forest Agreements, High Court action, such as the Tasmanian Dam’s Case).

Therefore it is entirely appropriate for the acquisition of the property on just terms as provided by Section 51 (xxx1) of the Australian constitution, as made famous by the Australian movie The Castle.

Thank you Justin, For those who comment without any practical or applicable experience in dealing with governments today and their unsustainable land use controls, it is easy to poo poo your article. But, for those who deal in the real world and plan, purchase and aim to produce the necessary goods which are conveniently consumed on a daily basis, your article highlights the reality, hypocrisy and corruption of the some of these so called statutory controls.

One of the biggest problems in the Murray Darling is that water is now too expensive to buy - that is the result of the Howard Government capitulating to demands to make water a private property right. It never was and never should have been. Not all 'things' should be owned; there should be a commons that belongs to all of us. That includes the life support systems that produce our food and protect life in Australia. It is not surprising that the PC recommends private ownership etc - they are in the extreme economic rationalist camp and believe the market is the greatest good. How much longer do we have to put up with that insane cargo cult?