If what this poor farmer (Peter Spencer) is saying is true, then this government is totally sinister and corrupt. If true, how can we help this poor guy?

listen to Alan Jones interview with this poor soul.
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonespeterspencer081209.mp3
http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonespeterspencer111209.mp3

And here an article on the ABC's rural pages which has another sound clip to listen to.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/wa/content/2009/12/s2771546.htm
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rural/wa/countryhour/click_here_m1827358.mp3

Great topic.Here we see the hypocracy of govt.We are increasing coal exports,we have desalination plants that gobble coal and the farmer gets punished.So Kevin is going to create more CO2 and tax us more for using it.Are the electorate that stupid?

Here is where we really see the power of the corporates.They want to mine more coal,gas and oil.put a tax on it and trade carbon credit on the stock market.So in effect that get a higher price for their pollution and they can make more profits on the share market trading carbon credits.

The effect will be to send farmers broke and the corporates will buy properties for virtually nothing then with their donations to political parties,change the rules to suit themselves.This is modern day serfdom and we'd better wake up soon.

Great topic?
Truly no offense meant but find myself posting after 2 posts that clearly come from a fantasy, that seem based only on that.
No sarcasm, but is raw mustard Mr Minchin?
And if our farmer was a coal protesting conservationist would RW be as concerned?
Arjay, long ago your slide into an unreal world lost me, but surely we all know no government action was ever likely as a result of this poorly advised hunger strike.
Can any of us not know if governments give in to such acts they will grow?

Everything Peter Spencer is saying is true. I know because I have known him for the last four years, and have followed his progress through the courts. He is asking that Christianity and the principles of the Holy Bible be restored to all Australians, and if he dies, his reward will be in heaven. The hardest man to kill is one who does not fear death. Even if his body perishes, his ideas will not.
The evidence of the replacement of Christianity in Australia by communism and fascism, is undeniable. By clicking on this website, anyone can obtain a copy of the evidence, courtesy of an Air Express bag. www.community-law.info
It often takes a martyr to effect real change and wake up a population to the gross injustice of a government. Most of us do not get called to give up our life for a cause. If called most of us will not respond, but Peter Spencer has heard a call, a call to end injustice, and has answered the call of His God, and until His God is again given respect in the courts of Australia, he will stay up his pole.
If Peter Spencer is martyred, Kevin Rudd will be a Scullin, a one term wonder. Tony Abbot is already moving to make the Christian majority his own. Unlike Fullabull, he is not shy about his Christian faith. Fullabull showed his true colors, after one vote changed history, and like Kevin Rudd, a committed Christian started to lead the Liberal National coalition. Australia cannot be governed except with the common consent of all Christians.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church was filled to the rafters, every Sunday when it was the national protest organization against injustice. Since 1922 its influence has declined, as it has no enemy outside to fight.
If Peter Spencer is allowed to die, it will unite Australian Christians as never before, and the flaws in government he has exposed, will be repaired and Churches will all be like Hillsong Church and filled to capacity. To borrow a phrase from the seventies, Its Time

So Belly,you see no injustice or hypocracy here.Just tow the Rudd line because your party can do no wrong? Kevin Rudd knew this was wrong that's why we didn't know about.Shame on the corporate media also.

This is a law in force in Australia but no longer applied. Peter Spencer is the victim of flawed lawmaking.
The Process of making law in Australia is flawed, and will remain flawed unless and until the legal profession confines itself to executing the law instead of making it by legal interpretation. The proper and lawful way that a Law is made is a three part process by reference to freely available documents. They are:
(1) The passage of a Bill through both Houses of Parliament and its submission to a Vice Regal person, for the royal assent.

(2) The giving of Royal Assent by either the Governor General or a delegate of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by Royal Sign Manual.

(3) The Enrolment of the assented Bill in the Supreme Court in accordance with S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 for when it is enrolled it becomes a universally binding Deed, to which every person is bound, knowing that it complies with all the provisions of the Australian Constitution because the Supreme Court has a duty, under S 15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) to ensure all Acts are made within the Constitution.

All valid laws should have a Royal Identifier on them, and all valid delegates of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second should have a Royal Identifier to be affixed by them on documents they have approved. The Australian Constitution as published in England has a Royal Identifier on it, but it is omitted here in Australia so Judges and Magistrates feel free to ignore it or apply it at their whim.

They no longer have a Personal Royal Identifier, or Seal, to affix to their judgments. None of the judgments Peter Spencer is protesting, is issued under a Royal Identifier. A protester on Peter Spencer’s mountain, called all politicians dishonest prostitutes, saying a prostitute earns her money, but politicians are not at present doing so.

She was angered by Kevin Humphreys who was also present, who said the millionaire property developers at Bringelly, were able to buy whatever decisions they wanted from the NSW Government

The first action Peter Spencer took was about his farm rates. He went before a Magistrate at Cooma, and argued that rates should not be paid on land that cannot be used. After a number of hearing Peter’s prayer was dismissed with costs by Magistrate Prowse. Yes a request to a court is still called a prayer.

He then went to the ACT Supreme Court believing in a Commonwealth statute that gives every court exercising federal jurisdiction, unlimited jurisdiction. They refused to do their Statutory duty, and a Master dismissed his prayer with costs. He Appealed to the Full Court, but they again dismissed his plea with costs. So corrupt have the courts of the Commonwealth, States and Territories become, that they laugh at the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

This is probably because they are all invalid, and have been since 1901, and are not registered in the Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court has never, so far as I know ever registered an Act. The requirement for every Act to be enrolled in an Australian Court is contained in the Australian Courts Act 1828. A transcript of its provisions is posted here:
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=520

Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd should both read it, because both claim to be Christians. The making of law, since the first encounter on a mountain in the desert of Israel, has needed God’s blessing. The place to get it was in the court of the Supreme Being, the Supreme Court.

Peter Spencer has been before Justice Emmett, a man who claims to be a Christian, Justice Rothchild, a Jewish gentleman, Justice Brereton who is probably an atheist, and many others, but none have done any credit to their Sovereign, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second whose duty is to uphold the Gospels. We should be entitled to expect honesty and integrity in our Judges and Magistrates.

Judicial Review is the ultimate power. Proof of that is here.
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

If that proposition is accepted, and a bipartisan commitment to abide the will of Almighty God prevails, Spencer wins

My understanding of this problem is that the government can claim CO2
reduction on the land because it cannot be cleared under the Kyoto
protocol. A condition of this claim is that the landowner must not
be compensated.
So the farmers like Peter have been hung out to dry so the government
could parade before the AGW community what good fellows they are.

I have been unable to make up my mind about AGW but I am fast becoming
dissolutioned with it especially now that there are accusations that
the sea level rise has been challenged because of IPCC "adjustments"
and further info that the Barrier Reef has shown great resilience.

Anyway, if farmers have to suffer loss because of government action
then they should be compensated by the whole community despite the
Kyoto protocol.
If necessary we should sign off from Kyoto.
Isn't it now defunct anyway ?

Dear Bazz,

My understanding is that the PM has
written a letter to Spencer asking
him to discuss compensation and
land management techniques - but
that Spencer has refused and has given
instructions to return the letter to the
PM unopened.

I'm not sure what Spencer hopes to achieve
with that action.

Now without any doubt I may appear to some as a self serving smarty.
Others may be offended by my lack of manners.
But only foxy made any sense in this thread so far.
Arjay, it is time you and I locked horns, do you truly think?, for a second my political ties point to me being biased?
That because I find the ALP better than the rest makes me always wrong?
Then how am I to see your lost attachment to conspiracy's theory's?
Mate end that idiotic assertion my thoughts come from my party, it is crimson stupid to think that.
Other who posted here should be aware, Abbott waded in to this debate, he had egg on his face in seconds.
Barnaby Joice did too, first actually and highlighted his failure to understand it.
This protester, is a political based activist.
No martyr, no Christ like victim , a man who many would gladly watch die if he was from the left or some reildgions.
He is attempting not to get justice but to blackmail us all.
Farmers should/will in time be compensated for actions controlling GW.
But so very many know the real truth behind this protest is nothing to do with that.
Land use and clearing has been controlled, rightly so, for a long time.
Radicalism, when its right or left should not be rewarded, blackmail is wrong giving in to it too.
PTB I fail to value your opinions , you seem to have enough confidence in them for both of us however.

Belly wrote:
"No sarcasm, but is raw mustard Mr Minchin?"

Always good to see a poly-tick resort to his bag of scum to derail a topic!

Belly wrote:
"And if our farmer was a coal protesting conservationist would RW be as concerned?"

If this treacherous/lecherous government had stolen his land without compensation to dig for coal, yes! But lets not (twice now) side track the issue shall we?

Foxy wrote:
"My understanding is that the PM has
written a letter to Spencer asking
him to discuss compensation and
land management techniques - but
that Spencer has refused and has given
instructions to return the letter to the
PM unopened."

Could you be a dear and provide a source for this understanding Foxy? Genuinely interested, thanks.

According to this link a letter was sent via the PM's Parliamentary Secretary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776585.htm

I don't know the particulars of this case, but it does on the face of it seem unfair for farmers to carry the burden for all of us in terms of obligations under the Kyoto Protocol without compensation; yet compensation is being mooted for coal producers. Bizarre!

Why not pay farmers for growing or maintaining established forests on their land and provide incentives for householders/businesses to reduce energy consumption rather than paying out money to the polluters.

We are going about this in all the wrong ways.

Agreed Pelican.They should be rewarded for growing things that trap carbon if carbon is the problem.Put a tax on coal or gas and use the money to develop solar industries.Forget the global BS,just put our own strategies in place and they will be far more effective and fair.

Kevin won't do this because he won't have the money to pay for his stimulus packages.He also is in bed with the large corporates.They don't want solar since it destroys their market and makes the consumer autonomous.This is why many are pushing nuclear since the consumer then becomes dependant upon them.The farmers are small and easy prey.Gutless comes to mind.

Pelican; Why not pay farmers for growing or maintaining established forests on their land..

Well, this is the whole problem.

I also own a large parcle of land, about 1800 ac which is heavily treed.

Now I am not allowed to clear as although my land is around 95% forrested, my region is below 30%, so tough!

Now the strange thing is that the only land holders that could get carbon credits were those who had already cleared their land and therefore could re-plant.

So in essence they were rewarded for clearing as their land values were ten fold to those not cleared and they would be rewarded again. Now that sucks!

I enquired about credits for existing forrests and was advised that that was not being considered. Figure that out!

So, I will be watching this case and I to will be claiming compensation if they have a win.

Just to put a little prospective on it.

Land that is cleared in my region sells for between $800 and $2000 per ac, while land that is not and can not be cleared sells for less than $200 per ac.

In my case alone that could be as much as $3millon difference.

Well worth fighting for hey

Not that the current encumbent is blameless but here's something that puts the origins of this way back into the Howard Era.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/

It is very clear, some of us comment without understanding of the subject
Pelican, goggle Joyce's statement on this matter, see his withdrawal after it was highlighted no country could afford the costs.
Look at the claims of a super tax and know if this bloke got his wish, costs would match that tax at least.
Understand his problem has its roots way back not today.
Raw Mustard, just as you have firmed your opinion of me, I as is my right, have firmly seen you as a hot head and too biased to debate with.
Now like it or not, this grandstanding fool, can not win, he should not win, we should not allow him to bring ten thousand others to challenge any government by blackmail.
And fellows are you all unaware farmers thousands of them, do without force leave some land as it is?
Yes without doubt some clearing rules are wrong, but this is no way to fight those laws.

What a strange case. Firstly, my understanding is that land clearing laws were enacted by various States to counteract the rampant environmental destruction caused by broadscale land clearing. That they result in reducing carbon emissions is a fortuitous by-product, but that wasn't the purpose of preventing rapacious farmers from wantonly destroying native vegetation.

Secondly, Rudd's abortion of an ETS as finally proposed and rejected specifically exempted agriculture.

While it will undoubtedly be sad for his family if this idiot starves himself to death, at least we'll be rid of another environmental vandal. Pehaps Peter the Babbler, Arjay and the other anti-environmental nutters could follow the hapless farmer's example - Alan Jones and Barnaby Joyce too!

Seriously, I have no sympathy for this attention-seeking fool, except for the fact that he's obvioulsy mentally unbalanced.

Brother Peter,
It is interesting how your forebears once farmed the highlands and produced valuable wool and meat from this safe country. It is sad now to see it locked up devoid of the grazing livestock that helped shape the environment into a safe play place for our people. It is sad now to see the woody regrowth and the subsequent bush fires that come with droughts and lightning strikes. It is sad to see the weed invasion especially the blackberries that harbour pests such as feral pigs and rabbits with no-one able to afford to control them. Our high country is turning into an expensive wasteland.
It is most sad that you have been forced to a hunger strike like Christ who had to die for our sins. The sins of the beaurocrats and voters often swayed by special interest groups who whould rather see livestock and their owners become extinct, with bush growing everywhere than a nice green grazed paddock soaking up carbon.
The clearing of land has never been a mistake. Our civilisation depends on it. The snowy mountains scheme was not a mistake - it has given us cheap clean power and water for irrigation. The locking up of land to go to waste and burn is a mistake. The waste of water for environmental purposes is a mistake. May the Holy Spirit be with you Peter and strengthen you in this time of need. The lack of publicity surrounding your hunger strike amazes me but the same happened when Christ was crucified by the ignorant crowds under cover of the Jewish passover festival. The same ignorant crowds are still here today. But Christ is truly with you Peter as He knows and owns the truth. May your family be protected by Christ as He cared for His Mother Mary and the others so long ago.
Yours in farming and brotherhood,
Disciple Dave

I think this discussion is being over complicated.
Australia has complied with Kyoto because of a halt to land clearing.
Australia gets brownie points for having done so.
Condition; the individual farmer cannot be compensated.

Question; if it is of benefit to the whole community, should not that
community pay for it ?

Belly
I did admit I did not know all the particulars of this case other than listening to the Alan Jones interview which is of course offering a very particular bias.

On the face of it, we don't want broadscale clearing as CJ pointed out but it is incongruous that we compensate those larger industries who have strong lobby groups, such as coal, and ignore the contribution of farmers.

I agree we should not be continually clearing land. It is hypocritical for us to continue clearing land for farming while we criticise foreign governments for doing same.

However those who have made a living out of it should not now be penalised, and in fact should be encouraged to plant more trees.

If we can afford to bail out sport and racing industries, fund corporates in car manufacturing, fossil fuels and many more, why not push some of this down to the smallest component - the individual.

PJ O'Rourke, who I don't have much in common with as it happens, did say one thing that resonated on Q&A. Rather than bail out the banks who were responsible through greed for the financial crisis, why not use these billions of dollars to repay the bank customer and let the banks fall. Other banks will come in their place. We reward this greed with a bail out and little more in the way of regulation (in the US case).

Peter Spencer has a right to air his views in any manner he pleases whether we agree with him or not. I hope for his family and friend's sake that he does not do himself harm. But he obviously feels strongly about his cause.

Belly as a unionist you would know that blackmailing governments or corporations through strikes or stunts like Spencer's is sometimes the only way to be heard.

The postal strike is a good example. Postal workers will now be denied their usual performance bonuses for going the extra mile in terms of deliveries over Xmas while executives continue to reap millions in bonuses

I wonder if all the people ridiculing this man would hold the same opinion if their homes were to be confiscated without compensation to widen a road? After all, it would be an injustice on your behalf to deny the majority clear access to and from...

Look, this is not about global warming, pollution reduction or destruction of the environment. This is about government stealing from the people at the point of a gun!

This poor fellow was sold land that he was legally aloud to develop agriculturally. Now with the click of a leeching government finger he has been denied this right without compensation. Is this right do you think?

Would you stand by while they demolished your home to widen a road without compensation. Isn't this the same thing?

I do wish the Christian gentle man would leave, in a hurry, you add nothing to a debate like this.
Pelican re read the racing thread no room exists to use it here.
Now this subject, it has been around for some time, put my name under C J Morgans post it talks for me.
But I know it understand the who history of it.
See walk with me here, Joyce too said pay the bloke, then it was pointed out, listen folks!
The costs would be more than this country could pay, much more than the ETS, that new super tax.
Now yes some bushy weeds are being protected.
Some land clearing can be done, some farmers should/could be compensated for growing trees.
BUT BARNABY JOYCE will not allow it!
He says we should keep the land for growing food, surely not all of it?
Some land can only grow trees, some can make its owners money only as carbon sinks, but this bloke is about none of that.
Allan Jones?, sorry nothing that comes out of that blokes mouth is of interest to me.

What we appear to have here is the great case of hypercritical numbnuttery thinking.

First let me say I feel for the emotional pain of the the farmer in question. Anyone's pain is sad. I admire his sticking to his "principals?", if not his logic.

Notwithstanding, what we have here is a man who refuses to accept reality.

As I understand it, he's upset about opportunity cost, money he *may* make in the future if he clears the land. This is dependent on; the bank, the climate and competition all cooperate. What will happen if they don't? Does he do the same about being unable to get the funds, or it fails?

Isn't the point of business being able to balance the risk with the return? and if he can't , it's sad but...
On one hand he want's equality for all but in his case he want's guilt edged guarantee against change. Specifically, immunity from usage of land regs changes. Nobody gets that (except perhaps in Qld)?

He has options but he has *chosen* his way or the highway,not anyone else.

I respect his right to die for *his principal* if that is what he wants. One can wonder what good would his death or later health issues do him, his wife, children, country?

He hasn't had his land or home taken off him, only it's uses restricted, every house holder/business is subject to that.I can't build the same shed now that I need for my business that I could have 11 years ago when I bought the house, (it was permitted then and affects my life and livelihood) I now have to buy/rent an office. The only difference is the size, the issue is the same.

I find it concerning, that disingenuous power mad entertainers(?) like Jones, can pontificate on emotional tripe and influence people like Raw Mustard who haven't a clue.

I wonder if he'd be so sympathetic if it was an alternative lifestyler, Labor voter.

I agree in principal with CJ.

Dear Raw Mustard,

My apologies for not responding to you
earlier but I've been busy with Christmas
preparations.

You asked me to provide you with a website
as to where I got my information from regarding
the rejection of the PM's letter to the Aussie
farmer. The website is as follows:

http://www.australiansonline.net.au/rural/content/2009/s2778535.htm?site=local

"Farmer's hunger strike."

If you scroll down to "Day 30," you'll find the reference there.

The website also gives additional information that may
be of interest to you and other posters.

Raw Mustard says; Would you stand by while they demolished your home to widen a road without compensation. Isn't this the same thing?

So are any of you going to answer this, or, as I susspect, you can't so you will simply aviod the question as is often the case.

I see tennents kicking and screeming and they are only being asked to pay a reasonable rent, or leave.

I would hate to see their reaction if they owned the place.

Rechtub hope you are having a great Christmas I am.
Do you bloke understand almost every word I and some other have posted here answers your question?
Can you understand the red neck mob, your side of the debate, Abbott and the fantasy club, SCREAMED ABOUT a new tax?
To compensate farmers for not being able to clear fell their land would be far more than double that tax.
Is that clear?
Can you understand growing trees as a carbon sink, could give farmers a cash crop, a good income, maybe a great one.
But not the ETS, National party fools, the same ones backing this man, say NO TREES, we need the land for food growth.
rechtub some land is only of use for trees, most farmers long ago stopped clear felling, many grow wind blocks and shelter trees willingly.
Lost in a world of their own, your fellow travelers are intent on not understanding issues on blackmailing governments and nor knowing what side the toast is buttered on.
Hope you have some insight into the issue now.

Totally sinister and corrupt that just about sums it up Arjay.
Just a note to the author I am having difficulty getting the links to work other than by copying the link into a new browser and searching it.
No biggy but just thought I would mention it. Probably due to my security I suppose?

In 2007, the Australian voters voted for Rudd who kept saying, "I have a plan", yet he never revealed this plan. To this very day, Rudd keeps saying that he has a plan and never revealing anything.

What have we seen from the Rudd Government in their 2 years of power?

* Internet Censorship because we are too stupid to decide for ourselves.
* Kyoto Agreement robbing all farms of a living.
* Looking away are rich soil food producers are destroyed by mining.
* Massive debts with nothing to show for it but increasing mortgage rates.
* Not allowing any Member of Federal Parliament from sending any comments from their office which criticises the Rudd Government.

Yes people, you voted for a dictator who craves to tell you how to wipe your bottom and blow your nose. Will the average Australian voter wake up? I hope so!

RE: CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 23 December 2009 7:22:49 AM

So when Australia no longer grows her own food, will you jump for Chinese produce that was banned in America due to being laced with drugs or chemicals?

Er, Spider. I'm quite sure that Australia can grow its own food needs on land that's already cleared. The problem is in trying to carry the 19th century model of earning export dollars from unsustainable agriculture into the 21st century and beyond.

The days of Australia ridng on the sheep's back are well and truly over, ditto with broadacre cropping. While these agricultural activities can be sustainable ecologically in meeting domestic demand, to continue to try and earn substantial export dollars out of them is environmental lunacy.

Australia needs to come up with a new economic plan - the old model has reached its use-by date.

Additionally, in the last week or two I've been given literally boxes of stone fruit, zucchini, button squash and tomatoes by local farmers - because it would cost them more to send them to Rocklea Markets than what they would get for them.

There's something really screwy about that, I reckon.

The anti Rudd mob are resorting to farce, this thread is such.
Working on a long held conservative view if you throw enough mud some will stick, policy's and ideas are not needed.
On radio national this farmer was interviewed.
He [this man starving himself to death?]
Was asked how often he saw his doctor, he replied he had just seen him, and would not need to for another two weeks.
I rest my case.

When in a monumental example of man’s inhumanity to man, the Japanese slowly starved all the big men to death, as prisoners of war, by only allowing half a cup of rice each per day, the final accounting was at the end of a rope for those who did this.

As a child of World War II I heard all these stories at the feet of our Returned Servicemen. I also heard stories of the mercy extended by our troops, to Japanese prisoners, who expected nothing but the same treatment they had meted out. The difference is in the Holy Bible. The failure of the current generation to understand just how important its message is, is the reason Peter Spencer is up a pole.

I call upon the Christians of Australia to stand up for what you believe in: the passages of the Holy Bible that are relevant to good government. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is charged with giving us peace, order and good government, and has breached your trust. Every three years you as Christians are called upon to make a collective judgment in the big jury. Peter Spencer is protesting that as a question of fact, that the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, are not made for the peace order and good government of Australia, but for the express purpose of re-electing the Howard Government on Green preferences.

So that you, the silent majority, cannot express your will effectively in a jury, all States including the Commonwealth, have removed your right to participate in a Christian democracy, as grass roots judges. The puerile and ineffective High Court has failed in its trust, to preserve the Commonwealth, because it has made the decisions that would give you your rights back, but Caroline Rogers, or Matthew Grey, Clerks in that Court, in conspiracy with a Judge, have closed the door on ordinary Australians, by using Rules of Court to frustrate the Rule of Law.

In Church this Sunday, Christians, say a prayer for Peter Spencer. Ask our Magnificent God, for an answer

Before 1900, when you went to a court, as an individual you actually went to a branch of your local Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian Church, in which two members of one of their congregations appointed as Justices of the Peace, acted as presidents. The minute any private property was involved, their authority ceased, and it was mandatory that it be referred to a committee of the whole, a Justice and twelve ordinary Christians like yourselves, for a trial and binding decision. Until 1900, Roman Catholics were second class citizens.

This annoyed them, and when the politicians wanted to ask England for self government, they employed the old Irish and Highland Scots remedy of a boycott. The politicians failed in their first attempt, and had to do it again. On their second attempt, to get the referendum passed by the big jury in a ballot, they first asked the Roman Catholics what they wanted. The simple answer: equality. You think I am talking B**lsh*t go read a transcript of the speeches in the House of Commons, here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=81

Unfortunately the divisions among Christians remained deep. The Northern Irish Protestant Australians and lowland Scots, mostly Presbyterian, were wildly untrusting of their Roman Catholic neighbours, and politicians and lawyers have been exploiting these divisions, despite the fact of massive intermarriage between the two. This division caused the Australian Labor Party enormous problems, and it decided to promote itself as a secular Party. The Liberals also embraced this policy, and lawyers have been promoting what is called the Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy. This is not the law.

As Christians, in Church every Sunday Almighty God is Sovereign. No matter who your pastor or priest is he or she will be teaching you that Almighty God through Jesus Christ reigns. You will if you regularly attend a church, know as fact that there are only two Christian Commandments. Love your nieghbor as yourself, and have no God but Almighty God. Every time a Judge sits he is usurping the role of Almighty God, unless he sits with a jury, or has consent freely given

It is ironic that much of our food produce is exported while at the same time food is imported into our country - possibly our garlic going OS crossing paths with the garlic coming in. Ludicrous.

I would hate to see the downfall of Australian agriculture due to back government practices (by both Libs and Labs) that might see more food coming in from OS due to lack of viability here.

There are many reasons for countries to encourage local food production including biosecurity and a dependent food supply.

The Peter Spencer situation is not just about food production but about who is responsible for producing or maintaining carbon sinks and how will it be valued in economic and other terms.

If we are to transition to a more sustainable lifestyle in the (far) future there has to be discussions about food production, exports, sustainable land use and populations.

People like CJ Morgan are deluded fools who know not what their governments are doing or, are part of this corruption.

This land lock going to stop farming. We are now seeing people like Spencer no longer allowed to farm on their land. They are not the environmental vandals. This environmental destruction is caused by over developing, by clearing the forests to build houses for uncontrolled immigration.

We have farmers, etc who due to Krudd's way, are not allowed to clear their land of regrowth for bushfire prevention. Yes, the blazes of the Blue Mountains, in Canberra and, most recently, the devastating fires in Victoria, have not woken up this stupid nation. I can't wait for the whole nation to explode now.

We LABOR Governments such as in Queensland where farming land is turned into mining land. We have, due to stupid Greenies and gutless Labor people, the banning for removing introduced feral pests such as pigs even though they're destroying native flora and fauna.

You can't tell fundamental Greenies though. They're just too stupid.

One more post then Hey Ho Hey Ho its off to work I must go. We all believe in magic to a greater or lessor degree. We love Harry Potter, and the latest Sci Fi hit Avatar,has a healthy dose of magic, and is entertaining and as my Sainted English Teacher said is also didactic.

The Christian message is that might is not right. Mao was trained they say by Jesuits, and he believed power came out of the barrel of a gun. The ultimate magic, is that we are given life, with the power to reason, and Christianity is the ultimate celebration of the art of reason. Peter Spencer feels cheated, not just by the Judges and Magistrates but by the apathy of his fellow Australians, who have sat by and let unreasonable and un-Godly laws, be enacted, and embraced the foolish philosophy that Parliament knows best.

Even the Romans who crucified Jesus Christ, knew that there had to be an ultimate authority. In their system it was the Emperor. Like Peter Spencer, Jesus Christ refused to live is a world without love or justice. In our system, that flows directly from the magic of the Resurrection, the ultimate source of magic or justice, is Almighty God. It was magic that Jesus Christ was able to rise from the dead. Not only was he dead, he was bruised and battered and his body fluids drained away.

Everyone should have access to a little magic. In my work I have seen my share of magic. I have seen people who should have died of cancer survive, and others who should have survived die. I have seen people choose to die, and succeed and others who went to die, refused death. With your prayers Peter Spencer will be refused death. Almighty God could give it to him right now, by simply sending a lightning bolt.

A call for a National Day of Prayer for justice, this Sunday, in every Church, and Home Group in Australia would convince PS that God still loves him, and wants justice for every person in Australia

My last post here gets added strength by some that followed.
No Sunday in church for me, no support and in truth no concern.
If the bloke was say a lefty we would not see much caring from those who try to belittle Rudd by using him.
PTB get a real life my Friend if every Christian went to every church this Sunday it would still be very few in percentage terms.
Take out those Christians who do not support this protest and none would be full.

I just don't see what religion has to do with this.

It is very simple;
Was the law changed AFTER he bought the land ?

If answer yes, he must be compensated.
If not, then he MAY be due some compensation.

Thats all, it is no more complicated than that.
So all this pontification is not needed.

With thanks to Labor in both state and federal levels of government, many farmers can't even clear regrowth for bushfire prevention. How many times must we witness whole towns and people being burnt to death before the fundamental greenies wake up to the fact their policies equals murder?

Then there are those farmers effect who now have to pay up for environmental studies just to clear grass away from an electrical fence. Such is leftist stupidity.

Spider you stretch a point but fail still tom convince me you understand the issue.
Clearly you dislike the ALP and just as clear you seem unable to comprehend they hold office after a majority put them there.
We Australians can never afford the form of Socialism for the farmers this bloke wants.
Our history is full of Socialistic support for the farm sector.
Interest free loans after flood or fire, droughts, tempest, even grants and they are mostly free.
In Queensland once cane farmers got jobs made just for them in councils and such .
We built rail lines then subsidized the freight costs once.
And from that farming sector we hear the bleating about Social security?
IF we let farmers clear all they wish, some would, have, destroy land.
Modern practice calls for better land management.
NOT all farmers care.
Not all know,
I am unable to cut down a tree I believe will fall on a house nearby, but I am unlikely to seek the spotlight to win the right to fell it.
near death? but only seeing a doctor every two weeks? pull the other one.
In any case the government should be able to intervene under the mental health act.
If he thinks this black mail will work he has issues

Dear old Belly buried somewhere in the wilds of Northern New South Wales is unaware that more people go to church at one Church in Sydney on a weekend, than make up the entire dues paying membership of both the Liberal Party and Australian Labor Party in New South Wales.

And that’s only one church. There are now thousands of such churches all over Australia and cosmopolitan KR who is Belly’s hero, was quite aware of this when he started to make a bid for the Labor Party to be accepted by the Christian Centre.

What is happening to Peter Spencer is un-Christian. It is happening because the forces of darkness have taken over every Courthouse in Australia, and kicked out the fair dinkum fellas like Belly, and given total control of the law to lawyers. The only profession Jesus Christ specifically cursed were lawyers. In Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52, he berated the local Law Society, way back in the year 32, and in 2009 they are still as bad as ever.

As anyone who has graduated from the school of hard knocks knows, while lawyers control the law everything is for sale. As Bing Lee states everything is negotiable. The man with the biggest wallet wins. Abe Saffron had a huge wallet full of criminal proceeds, and he was able to buy the Liberal Party, and when they changed buy the Labor Party, because lawyers will sell their souls every day to Satan, just as they did two thousand years ago. Sometimes the lawyers lose a case for a very wealthy client, like poor Rene Rivkin, but when your client has a brain tumor, and cannot keep his gob shut, they have a hard time.

Christians must rise up and demand justice for Peter Spencer and for every man woman and child in Australia. Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott have only to agree to repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and remove Order 46 Rule 7A from the Federal Court Rules by telling Peter Spencer they will enforce s 22 Australian Courts Act 1828

Maybe, just maybe Peter Spencer would come down, if he was offered an opportunity to put the cleaners through the Federal Parliament. It is after all a Court, and if it cant keep its own house clean, perhaps Peter Spencer should start taking a broom to it. He cannot do that up on a pole at Shannon’s Flat.

Section 44 of the Australian Constitution says certain members are disqualified.and the disqualifications are set out clearly.

Any person who is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, is disqualified. While the Australia Act 1986 continues without a Royal Identifier legitimately affixed to it by a legitimate Supreme Court, every person who owes allegiance, obeys laws made by a State Government, or adheres to a foreign power, is disqualified automatically.

That just about brings about a Constitutional Crisis, because everyone in Australia holds dual citizenship, and the States are a foreign power to the Commonwealth. In point of fact, the Governor General has a duty to call an immediate election, on the Australia Act 1986.

The Governor General must issue a Writ, and call an election, because every member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth is disqualified while the Australia Act 1986 remains on the books and Peter Spencer can come down. It is only because of this Act that he is up the pole. Without the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, his just case would have been settled.

Federal Members of Parliament have a choice. Repudiate allegiance to the foreign members of the United States of Australia, that is the eight States and Territories or resign. This is the heart of Peter Spencer’s protest.

Under s 46 of the Australian Constitution Peter Spencer, if he sued every member as he is entitled to do, is entitled to collect 100 pounds for every day they have sat in the present Parliament. That ought to be enough incentive for him to abandon his perch, rather than drop off it. We have never had a referendum on the Australia Act 1986. That would be Peter Spencer’s legacy.

Great topic.

Lots of mud in your eye.

Poor Kevin Rudd supporters.

You know I was watching a community cabinet meeting on Austar channel 648 and Kevin Rudd was picking his nose while answering an audience question.

lol.
Nice to see labor supporters having to justify themselves on this one.

One Honest Judge, is all we need to have a Double Dissolution. Peter Spencer has drawn the attention of the world to the endemic corruption that is Australian Government today. If the Australia Act 1986 is held invalid, and it is in part, then the parts that are invalid, invalidate all the State and Territory Governments and disqualify each and every member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

These well suited individuals are well suited to be removed from their position as parasites on the public purse. While the paradoxes remain in the Australia Act 1986, and every member qualifies for disqualification, while they tolerate the United States of Australia, with Super State well into avoiding its responsibilities, we are in limbo.

We are not governed by any Rule of Law today, but by a media and propaganda empire owned by moguls, one of whom has even abandoned his membership of the Commonwealth. Alan Jones is one honest Judge. However we must get one who is Official. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has made efforts to create a fair and just Australia, but it is white anted and made totally ineffectual by the refusal of the Governor General to do Her Job, and the refusal of the Australian Federal Police to date to do theirs.

Both the Australian Federal Police and Governor General have the job of executing and maintaining the laws of the Commonwealth. If Commissioner Tony Negus goes up to Peter Spencer’s Tower of Hope, and says “I will arrest any Judge who does not file your application and any Judge who does not give you a jury trial, and put them on trial for perverting the judicial power of the Commonwealth,” Spencer can come down, have a feed and get stuck into the New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth Governments.

It may well be the Commissioner Tony Negus, or Governor General Quentin Bryce, who is the honest Judge, we so desperately need. Negus and Bryce have the power, but they need the will. Jesus Christ fasted for forty days. A hard act to follow.

On Spencer’s Mountain, I heard one New South Wales National Politician openly admit that money talks in New South Wales. It talks in New South Wales because the Commonwealth destroyed the High Court in 1979, and virtually neutered itself at the same time. The ruthless money men of New South Wales, who are often criminals, nobbled the Judges and made them their slaves, by the simple expedient of making them bribable.

When the English adopted the Holy Bible as their Constitution in the Magna Carta and made it law in 1295, even the King had to bow before Almighty God. Now no one bows before Almighty God but are expected to lower their eyes and be humble before Satan. I once caused a stir in an Anglican Church by stating that until 1900, every court was a branch of the Anglican or Protestant Church, and that the Holy Bible was their Rules of Court. The Pastor nearly had a heart attack, because that was a political statement. The Bishop did have a heart attack, but I don’t think I caused it.

The fact is that the only thing that public servants and criminals fear, is the courts. To remove that fear, in 1970, New South Wales enacted this section in the Supreme Court Act 1970. Any Act in force immediately before the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the rules shall be superseded to the extent of such inconsistency and while such inconsistency continues to exist.

Think about this section. Dishonest Judges make the Rules, and these Rules overrule the Australian Constitution. That is why Spencer may die. A totally dishonest Supreme Court now rules in New South Wales. We are ruled at the whim of nine lawyers. In Law Week at the end of January these Judges will go for God’s blessing on their Satanic endeavours.

Maybe Archbishop Peter Jensen will become an honest Judge, and stand up for Jesus Christ and exclude these hypocrites from St James Church. If the Supreme Court is fixed in New South Wales I guarantee that Almighty God will fix homelessness

Religion is for people that need an imaginary friend .
The biggest con the world has endured.
Best to leave it in your imagination ,and tell no one.

In the Book of Ephesians, 2:12 St Paul stated the obvious. That at that time you were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise.

The Australian Constitution starts off: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal Commonwealth, under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was a covenant of promise.

Australian lawyers and those in the United Kingdom have cut the people off from the covenants of promise, by destroying the Crown, and substituting Old Testament Judges, for the judges that the Son of Almighty God prescribed in the Holy Bible.

Every Judge who sits without a jury is a pagan. They are all guilty, and they even have Satanic Symbols under which they sit in New South Wales, It reads Orta Regens Quam Nita Pures. That means Lately Risen, how brightly we shine. I am not that big on Latin.

Criminals are those who would destroy our covenant of promise. Our Covenant of Promise is the Australian Constitution. It is written in English, since 1610, four hundred years ago, and the authorized King James Version is still published under the Official Sign of the Crown. It is appointed to be read in churches, and to restore our Covenant of Promise must again be read in courts.

A small atheist tail, funded by criminals, led for many years by Abe Saffron, has been wagging the slumbering Christian dog. That slumbering Christian dog elected Kevin Rudd, because it saw him as more Christian that JH. He got elected on a covenant of promises, but none of them have effectively been kept. He still has time.

Someone is blowing wind up his Khyber. He needs to send his lawyer advisers packing, take a KJV Holy Bible in his hand, confess his sins, and toddle up the Mountain to Peter Spencer. If the mountain cannot come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. God bless Australia

The discussion seems to be getting off track. If the people in the cities expect people, ie farmers,to offset their right to pollute the world as fast as they can then surely they must pay for that expectation. Is there a vegetation map for the Ipswich Bypass? Because I could never get my hands on one! Different rules perhaps?
Mike

Want some fun?
Want to see evedence not all we say here is true?
Go, please do, to this mornings Friday edition of the Australian.
Read about Peter Spencer, from information his own brother gave.
We come from all walks of life in OLO highly educated or very poor, we must then re read this thread.
See again the claims that have been made here.
And understandif we get it wrong, we all do, some more than others.
It is a learning experiance to understand and admit it.
I? well reading the thread again, am enjoying it .

True! it was well worth it.
PTB did you lie?
You said you knew the bloke for 4 years, then surely you knew his real problems?
Every day I learn, sometimes its re learn.
This morning I re earned opinions are free, much or very little thought can go into them.
Much or no understanding too.
Yet we all put more value on our own than others.
Few are wise enough to take the mistakes, cuddle them, own them, and grow by them.

Thanks Belly. The more I learn about this guy the less sympathy I have for him. He's also the environmental vandal who was behind 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' in 2007.

What a goose. As are the credulous idiots who've been sucked in by him in order to push their own barrows.

I have not seen the newspaper article, but does it change the basic
argument.
The government wanted to stop clearing of land to comply with an
international treaty.
Is that correct ?
Then it must have a cost on the landholder.
Is that correct ?
If so then the cost of such treaties must be born across the community.

Is that reasonable ?

It does not matter whether he owes money or whatever other
circumstances apply, that seems to be the start and finish of the matter.
Are there other farmers in the same boat ?
If yes then why should they all not get compensation ?

No Bazz. Land clearing laws were enacted by the States in order to halt the rampant destruction of the environment by farmers. Some years later the Howard government included remnant vegetation and regrowth in its disingenuous claim to be meeting the Kyoto targets it refused to ratify.

Nobody stole anything from anybody. I'd be willing to consider compensating farmers from consolidated revenue when they compensate taxpayers for the costs of environmental destruction, not to mention the millions of dollars we shell out each year to prop up unsustainable 'farmers' with 'Exceptional Circumstances' payments etc.

This whole thing's a beat-up by a bunch of lunatic fringe environmental rapists who've clearly chosen the wrong poster boy for their loopy cause.

I can't for the day we have closed down the farms and all the jobs. Then you idiots can see about living amongst nature like prehistoric man.

CJ Morgan,
Nothing you said changes anything.
You can blame farmers for this that and the other, but never the less
you still go to the super market. It does not appear there ny magic.

Frankly your blame of farmers sounds like a greeny rant.
If the government changes the laws and disadvantages anyone the cost
should be carried by the community.

It is so simple I don't understand why you can't see it.
y did not steal the land, just made it unusable !

CJ Morgan wrote:
"Nobody stole anything from anybody. I'd be willing to consider compensating farmers from consolidated revenue when they compensate taxpayers for the costs of environmental destruction, not to mention the millions of dollars we shell out each year to prop up unsustainable 'farmers' with 'Exceptional Circumstances' payments etc."

Perhaps you could get all urbanites to compensate taxpayers for the environmental destruction performed under the veil of urban growth. I think you CJ Morgan should begin by donating your place of residence at no compensation mind you. I'm sure once we rip out the concrete, tar, bricks, and PMG tunnels, we could get a beautiful little Eco system established!

CJ Morgan wrote:
This whole thing's a beat-up by a bunch of lunatic fringe environmental rapists.

Would they be the same people responsible for the food you eat, the cloths you wear, and the furniture you sit in when you write this drivel? Would you be one of those deluded intellect's that think your timber framed home came from Bunnings? or that your margarine comes from Safeway?

Seeing as you despise these people so much, I think you should cut your wrists after you've donated your place of residence. That way we can do away with the need of further rampant destruction of the environment in the name of your standard of desired living!

A bigger load of hogwash I have never read. Where do these lunatics come from?

Actually spider you add to the fun.
Your post made me grin again, you missed to point and highlighted another.
Raw Mustards rants had a clear lead in being laughable, until you missed the whole point by a huge margin.
Look Bazz bloke, box my ears at Gosford but C J Morgan got it right.
every word was true.
our goose in the tree may or may not be eating, back is its short odds.
His form released by his brother is one rant after another.
see problem here is human nature, some, spider raw mustard, cuddle him to their breast, because they want to believe he believes what they do.
NEVER give up talking politics, EVER this thread surely proves we need to see every side of issues, and that we may well be wrong.
Improvement never comes from never being wrong, spider, thanks.
Bush born and bred you gave me a grin, get out more mix with people.

It is a wonder Peter Spencer has not focused on the real heart of the problem. We have had a free trial of nine separate republics since the Australia Act 1986. The lawyers of Australia including Malcolm Turnbull have been making hay out of turning all Australians into State Slaves, just like the Romans did to the Jews in Israel.

A radical Jew claimed they were doing it wrong, and offered a better way of doing things. He spelt it out in a three year ministry, and in four books of the Gospels, His words, when printed in Red are still inspirational. The English adopted his words as their Constitution in 1215, and were immediately overruled by the Pope. Nevertheless, in 1297 they made it law, and that law continues to today.

What Peter Spencer wants is a money back guarantee. If Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce, go up to him, and promise that the next election will be fought as a de-facto referendum, on the Australia Act 1986, and ask him to help by going on an Australia wide speaking tour to tell the world about the evils of Nine Republics, instead of A United Nation, then he can come down.

Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce must do this to defeat Kevin Rudd. Peter Spencer’s death would be pointless if these people will call for a referendum, because this would put the States and Territories in their proper place. The lazy ineffectual Australian Federal Police should get involved, and Commissioner Tony Negus could have the same effect. He has the power, to cover him and his men and women with glory. Just enforce the Constitution and root out the court based corruption that lets the republics we should not have continue. Should not be too hard, don’t you think

I feel the despair creeping into Belly's posts as he realises his man may be a oncer. A second Scullin. He has promised so much for the homeless, and delivered nothing. Problem is he is dedicated to his corrupt State Based Political Mates, and their organisations, and the thirty lawyers who are now in Pariament in the Labor Party in Canberra.

As I travel around, my friends are telling me they voted for Rudd, but are bitterly disappointed. So am I. Lets just hope Peter Spencer can persuade the Opposition to be the change we have to have. Sorry Belly, the truth can no longer be hidden by your media mates.

In response to CJ’s first post (23 December)….

<< land clearing laws were enacted by various States to counteract the rampant environmental destruction caused by broadscale land clearing. >>

Yes, and not at all for reasons pertaining to climate change / greenhouse gas emissions / Kyoto agreement.

<< That they result in reducing carbon emissions is a fortuitous by-product… >>

But stopping land clearing doesn’t result in reducing carbon emissions. It results in the rate of carbon emissions being lower compared to open-slather clearing, but a halt to broadacre clearing is in itself carbon neutral!

Preventing regrowth from being cleared is carbon positive. That is, it creates a carbon sink. But not so for old growth vegetation.

<< Rudd's abortion of an ETS as finally proposed and rejected specifically exempted agriculture. >>

Yes. So at Copenhagen how the hell could he justify including carbon emissions foregone by preventing clearing, when he was going to take an agriculture-excluded ETS to the summit? Totally duplicitous!

<< While it will undoubtedly be sad for his family if this idiot starves himself to death, at least we'll be rid of another environmental vandal. >>

I strongly disagree. Peter Spencer is totally justified in his complaint about the lack of compensation. He bought the property on the understanding that it could be developed. The price he paid would have reflected that. Now not only can’t he develop it, but the property’s resale value would have been skittled. He absolutely should get compensation at least to the extent of the loss of property value that he has incurred.

My (thank goodness) very limited experience with our justice system has given me the same sort of profound disgust and dismay as it has for Peter. I mean OF COURSE he should be able to take his case to court and have it heard…and not suffer continuous strike-outs while incurring costs each time! How utterly disgusting.

To call Peter Spencer an environmental vandal apparently simply because he is a farmer who would like to undertake a bit of clearing and development of his property is really unfortunate.

PTB, grasp reality while you can.
Know without doubt, Rudd will win the next election with an increased majority.
Know Abbott will not be there for the following election.
Ludwig read his brother story in the Australian, you clearly have not.
Peter Spencer's whole history insures he will change nothing, Ludwig surely you are not unaware land clearing laws we live by today came into being under John Howard? before Rudd won leadership of my party?
That state laws stop him clearing not federal?
Research the subject Ludwig, you can do better.

You haven't been following this issue very closely, have you Ludwig?

Read this link and have a bit of a rethink:

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

Also, maybe you should have read this thread a bit more closely before chucking in your 2c worth. I referred to Spencer as an environmental vandal because of his leading role in the execrable 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' in 2007, not because he's a farmer (which he isn't really, anyway).

My apology Ludwig - I did refer to the hapless Spencer as an "environmental vandal" in my first post. That description has been validated as the issue has unfolded. As an environmentalist, you'd have to agree that the 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' stunt that he helped organise in 2007 was nothing short of spiteful environmental vandalism.

If you read that discusion at Larvatus Prodeo, I think you'll see that it's mostly quite balanced and informative, with only minimal sniping compared to here.

As I've said elsewhere, if farmers want to be compensated for not wrecking the environment, then they should also be prepared to be levied for the cost of repairing the environmental damage caused by agriculture. Think about the Murray Darling Basin, for example (of which Spencer's property is part, if I'm not mistaken - the watershed for the eastern and western falls runs along a ridge that borders his property, I think). Or the effects of fertiliser on the Great Barrier Reef. Perhaps farmers should also be prepared to repay drought relief assistance from the profits they make in good years?

Frankly, I think that much of the land in Australia that is currently under agriculture is too marginal to be sustainable, and that this situation will worsen as global warming begins to bite. We can, however, feed ourselves sustainably on productive land that is already cleared and cultivated.

As for poor old Spencer - if he hadn't mismanaged his affairs to the point that he owes his family a million dollars that they want back, he could simply have run cattle in addition to his sheep and lived quite comfortably. Sorry, I still have very little sympathy for this guy and his cause.

It is so hard!
Not to say I told you so.
But Ludwig, not a bad person, wandered in without reading the thread or the news.
Sat down and gave further evidence my earlier post was right.
Look back even now, at posts in this thread.
Read CJMs link, see just how silly, how wrong some comments are.
Lets face it, we ALL get it wrong, me often.
But we MUST not hide it, pretend it did not happen.
When some comments appear, it is hard to know why it is so biased or wrong.
Is it lack of understanding? or the ability to understand?
I will forever remember a bloke we called the Minister for main roads.
He was never wrong, no room for improvement existed.
We got huge fun from his often used statement.
I am wrong but I am right.
Have a read Ludwig read it all enjoy, I did.

Belly, please!

Every one of us has the right to comment whether or not we have a detailed understanding of the issue at hand. In this case I don’t. So what?

I’ve got no problem at all with being pulled up about something and shown to be wrong or off-track if that be the case. I’ve got no problem with developing my knowledge of this matter as the discussion progresses rather than researching it to the Nth degree first.

So please, no more criticism for simply putting up a view. Instead, how about elucidating just what it is you think I’ve got wrong and debating it accordingly.

I notice that in your last two posts where you are being critical of me, you haven’t even given me a clue as to what your point of disagreement is!

CJ, thanks for the Lavartus Prodeo link. I haven’t read all 327 comments, but I think I’ve got a good handle on the subject. I must say, I haven’t really learnt anything new compared to what I understood previously.

Firstly, regarding Peter Spencer’s involvement with National Chop Down a Tree Day, I don’t agree that freehold landowners should have exclusive rights to manage their vegetation. But I do appreciate his concerns about the overriding of freehold principles and about the government acting in a manner that is not in keeping with our constitution. I support him when it comes to the rule of law being upheld. So I don’t think it is as bad as you apparently do.

From the Lavartus Prodeo article: ‘Tower of hope or vale of tears’ by Brian2:

<< So the burden does not fall equally and in some cases threatens viability. Peter Spencer’s experience appears to be one such case. >>

YES, absolutely! There absolutely must be compensation to at least try and even up the burden a bit and not lump some people with critical consequences while others don’t get affected at all.

<< …wherever there is a cost incurred in the public interest, the public, as the beneficiary, should logically bear it. >>

YES! So the taxpayer should have to fork out for compensation!

<< [former Justice Ian ] Callinan points out that people may be rewarded financially for planting trees, but apparently not for being required by law to let them grow.

Callinan sees the fair and equitable sharing of expense from environmental and planning law “as a real challenge to the legislatures and the courts, including the High Court as the constitutional court, for 2008 and beyond. >>

Sure, it is a challenge. But whatever attempts are made, it has surely GOT to be better than just locking up peoples’ livelihoods and saying, ‘no, you'll get nothing for your loss’!

That is just rotten. It is communistic and totally antidemocratic!

continued

<< Joyce says the farmers should be compensated. Tanner says compensation would be massive. Joyce says that just goes to show how much has been taken from farmers. >>

Very good point Barnaby!

Yes, full compensation would be very expensive. So how about a middle-ground solution – half compensation?

From the 3rd post, by PeterJ:

<< First, the real scam in this is that much of the land that has been locked up would probably never have been cleared and certainly not “clear felled”. So our dishonest politicians used carbon that was never going to enter the system to offset what the coal industry (as an example) is putting out. >>

Absabloodylootely! In fact, this is a scam upon a scam! Firstly, the whole land-clearing connection to carbon emissions reductions is being grossly abused by Rudd, because it is simply allowing other enormous sections of the emissions picture to just go on unabated. That is, to go on EXPANDING unabated - coal mining, big industry, Rudd’s massively continuous increase in the number of fossil fuel consumers and polluters in this country, etc.

While it is good to bring an end to broadacre clearing for environmental reasons, it is atrocious that our leader can see fit to use this as an excuse to allow the other enormous polluters to continue with business as usual.

Jesus F Christ, this is disgusting!

<< Second, on Peter Spencer’s situation specifically, he didn’t want to clear fell his land. As I understand it, he wanted to thin regrowth and restore the previously pastured areas. In other words, he wanted to restore it to much the same condition that the aborigines had maintained it in. >>

Whether or not he wanted to restore it to pre-European vegetation is irrelevant. He wanted to restore it to its former productive state, at least in part, as was his right at the time he purchased the place.

While I support tree-clearing legislation in principle, he should have been able to do that, or otherwise be duly compensated.

Ludwig I am no Christian.
But find your needless use of that term as offensive as the American one referring to sex with ones mother.
I have ALWAYS seen you as a bright person, never once thought you had problems understanding issues.
But bloke you very much do.
In your blind dislike of Rudd and labor you mount the horse back wards.
Did you from that thread see dates? did you understand Howard had much more to do with it than labor and Rudd very little.
And states involvement LONG BEFORE federal Labor came to power?
Do you understand Joyce got more flack from his side than Tanner? or that he retracted it/
Bloke I need not speak of how wrong you are on this issue, now even more than raw mustard you show it here.
And last how long has understanding an issue not been needed before commenting on it?
Sorry bloke yet again I find the thread funny and sad re read it Worth it I promise end on the Australians story last Friday, enjoy.

Ludwig, Belly's quite correct that your hatred of Rudd seems to be colouring your judgement. It was the Howard government that first factored anti-land clearing laws into quasi-Kyoto calculations, not Rudd. And as you acknowledge, the laws were enacted well prior to Kyoto, so the nonsense about Spencer and others having had something 'stolen' from them because of AGW is shown to be just that.

Frankly, I'm surprised at your attitude as an environmentalist to the execrable 'National Chop Down a Tree Day'. I can think of few nastier symbolic and actual actions by the rednecks towards the environment than that occasion. It was pure evironmental vandalism, whether or not you sympathise with the misguided vandals who participated.

I note that you have much to say about compensating farmers, but you ignore my point about their liability for the environmental damage they cause. The sorry mess that is the Murray-Darling Basin is clearly the result of unsustainable agricultural practices, and we taxpayers will be footing the bill for remediation for decades. Ditto for GBR. You want us to pay to repair the damage that agriculturalists are responsible for, and also to compensate them for not wrecking the environment.

There is a relatively simple answer to the problems of landowners who want compensation for not clearing native vegetation and regrowth - and it's an Emissions Trading Scheme. Farmers could be granted a one-off initial credit for such lands, that they could sell to emitters like power stations, refineries etc. Of course, the corollary to that is that agricultural emissions could not be exempt.

Funny, nobody seems to want talk about that solution.

Ludwig I do hope you return and address my claims, ignoring the fact you may have got it wrong is not hiding the truth.
I am reminded of a workmate of many years.
He had the back out of his favorite overalls.
A photo was taken after months of seeing too much, his remark?
you are only trying to embarrass me!
He for too long did not share the sight we saw.
Theda talks about starving? how long have just we talked about this bloke, near death.
Take the short odds the bloke has food up there.

CJ, I do indeed have a depth of feeling about Rudd that could be described as hatred. But it is totally justified. I’ve also consistently said that the Libs and Labs are peas in a pod. They are just as bad as each other. But Rudd pulls the strings that are leading us so strongly in the opposite direction to a sustainable and healthy future. So he rightly deserves the highest level of lambastery.

I note that you have levelled this criticism at me without offering any response to my comments in relation to Rudd, as presented in my last post.

Yes it was Howard who first factored anti-land clearing laws into quasi-Kyoto calculations. But so what? Rudd is now in control.

<< …so the nonsense about Spencer …having had something 'stolen' from them because of AGW is shown to be just that. >>

No it isn’t. Just because the original motivation in preventing the clearing of regrowth was not climate change related, doesn’t mean that it isn’t now. Rudd, in upholding the theft conducted under Howard, or NSW Premier Bob Carr, whichever the case may have been in relation to Spencer, is just as bad… or rather, he is worse, as it is beholden on him to address things like this that are so obviously disgraceful.

My views on Peter Spencer are not black and white. I don’t totally support him. I certainly do sympathise with his concerns about the government essentially taking his livelihood and offering no compensation, and about the constitutional conflict and basic principle-of-law violation therein, but I think that the ‘national chop down a tree’ approach to protesting about this is a most unfortunate way of addressing the issue. I don’t like it, but I’m not willing to label it as << pure environmental vandalism >>.

I don’t agree with him that freehold landowners should have total rights to their vegetation management, but neither should they be prevented from viably managing a property, or clearing near buildings in order to prevent wildfire from destroying everything, which is one of Peter’s gripes.

continued

Peter Spencer put up an article on OLO on 27 Jan 2006, titled: ‘War on farmers’. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4089

This is a ‘must read’ article that succinctly outlines his plight. It attracted 94 comments, including 11 from me. At the time, four years ago, I expressed some support and some criticism for him. My position remains the same.

One of my criticisms was that there is not a war on farmers. Yes, Peter has copped a raw deal. But he admits in his article that his property is probably < one of the worst affected in Australia >. His situation is not typical.

<< I note that you have much to say about compensating farmers, but you ignore my point about their liability for the environmental damage they cause >>

Not ignored, just not commented on, until now: Yes it is a good point. Of course farmers should be liable for the damage they cause. Partly liable, that is. All of society that benefits from produce or export income gained as a result of that damage should be held accountable as well. Farmers shouldn’t entirely carry the can for that sort of thing.

Maybe an ETS would help straighten out the costs. But of course, it would have to be a meaningful and equitable ETS in which big business and coal mining was not exempt and the continuously rapidly increasing rate of energy consumption and pollution output generated via Rudd’s massive population growth policies was genuinely addressed. There is no chance of that happening while Rudd is PM. So we may as well forget about the whole ETS idea!

Footnote – thanks CJ for the good quality topic-oriented discussion that we are having here.

OK Ludwig so I have upset you.
Please will you go to the story in last Fridays Australian.
See it read it and know, it was his brother that told us why he is doing this.
See the threads title, one you seem intent on agreeing with.
this has nothing to do with RUDD it is about a man in financial trouble clutching at straws.
Now how many days? without food? is that possible LUDWIG?

Belly, as far as I am aware Peter Spencer does not have a brother. He has a brother in law, who would love to get the farm so he could bribe Cooma Council to give him permissiuon to subdivide it and sell it in small blocks. Peter Spencer has 20 separate titles, amd total Freehold. He has probably two million tonnes of fallen timber that the NSW Government will not let him sell. Brothers in Law can be proper bastards.

Belly unless your mate Kev pulls the States back into the Commonwealth, by instructing the Federal Police to attend every court case,and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth against the States,I think he is going to be a oncer. The second Scullin. I dont abandon a fellow I supported last election unless he has totally fallen down on the job. He has not kept many of his promises while throwing money around like a drunken sailor.

Ludwig: << Maybe an ETS would help straighten out the costs. But of course, it would have to be a meaningful and equitable ETS in which big business and coal mining was not exempt and the continuously rapidly increasing rate of energy consumption and pollution output generated via Rudd’s massive population growth policies was genuinely addressed. >>

Agreed.

<< There is no chance of that happening while Rudd is PM. So we may as well forget about the whole ETS idea! >>

I don't share your acknowledged "hatred" of Rudd, so I think it's more rational and probably more productive to pressure the Rudd government to try and get a proper ETS up, as decribed above. I'm not optimistic, but I think it's a better approach than foaming at the mouth and supporting quixotic campaigns by frootloops just because they're directed at Rudd.

While you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and emotions, I think we should agree to disagree on this issue.

While I may well have not entered it properly.
I also may have been deleted.
I did ask a question of PTB.
Peter you often tell us you represented this farmer, media identifies that person, is it you?
My post again highlighted my view conservatives have for decades, used fear threats, mud slinging, to harm to ALP when they are in government.
It worked once but not now, and surely you are fishing in a dry well trying to blame Rudd for this.

<< I think we should agree to disagree on this issue.>>

I’m not sure just what it is that you want to agree to disagree on CJ.

<<…so I think it's more rational and probably more productive to pressure the Rudd government to try and get a proper ETS up, as decribed above >>

More rational than what?

Yes of course we’ve got to keep lobbying for a sensible ETS, or whatever system might do the trick better than an ETS. But as you say, there’s no cause for optimism.

Who’s << foaming at the mouth >> ?

I have well and truly elucidated my reasons for feeling so strongly about Rudd. I can't recall you coming back and countering them at any point. You’ve even let my comments to that end on this thread go unaddressed, as I pointed out yesterday.

Given that you are not normally one to let things go that you disagree with, I reckon you must essentially agree … and therefore I have to wonder why you don’t detest Rudd as well.

<< …supporting quixotic campaigns by frootloops just because they're directed at Rudd. >>

Huh?

Presumably your < frootloop > is Peter Spencer (and not me!?). While I disagree with some of his views, I’ll maintain that his core concerns are rock solid and well worth making a stand over.

You haven’t commented on my points about the constitutional conflict and basic principle-of-law violation inherent in the government locking up some peoples’ vegetation and hence livelihoods, in a very uneven manner, without any means of evening it out for those most severely affected by way of some form of compensation.

This is huge part of Peter’s gripe. It alone is more than sufficient justification for his stance.

I think that you are being far too unkind in blanketly condemning Peter Spencer.

Aussie farmer nearing death as a result of AGW HOAX.
That is our subject.
How long can you live without food?
How near death was he on the day this thread came into being.
How much worse is he now.
Surely if he is near death we should drag him to hospital.
HOAX evidence says it is not just about AGW, why continue to ignore the long history to this.
Has the debts owed by this bloke got anything to do with this.
WHY are farmers, more of them, not sitting bin such nests all over Australia?

Ludwig - as you know, I'm no great fan of Rudd but I certainly think that he and his government are streets ahead of any likely alternative. I see no value at all in wasting energy on "hating" the PM, who could not lead his government if he didn't have the support of the ALP caucus. Hell, I didn't even hate the odious Howard, who was far worse in my books. Once you start hating, reason flies out the window - indeed, it's one of the problems with the kinds of debates that occur in online forums such as this.

I think that Spencer's silly protest is a hoax and a beat-up for reasons that I've clearly explained. The man is best described as a businessman/hobby farmer with little farming experience and grandiose ideas, who wants the Australian taxpayer to bail him out of the consequences of his poor business decisions and his own mismanagement of the marginal property that he acquired and subsequqntly neglected.

You want him and others like him to be compensated, but you propose no mechanism for doing so. I've suggested that the only viable and equitable way of farmers being remunerated for not engaging in broadscale land clearing is via a comprehensive and progressive ETS under which emitters pay, rather than taxpayers.

Spencer isn't a farmer. He's a businessman who's made some poor decisions that he wants somebody else to pay for.

CJ, you continue to condemn Peter, but without having addressed the all-important point of constitutional conflict and principle-of-law violation that he has been subjected to.

I respect your views, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

<< Once you start hating, reason flies out the window >>

Not at all. I guess you and I are very different in the way we think about this.

<< You want him and others like him to be compensated, but you propose no mechanism for doing so. >>

I haven’t needed to propose a mechanism so far in this discussion. The principle of compensation is what really matters here.

There’s nothing too difficult about the mechanics. It is basically just a matter of making money available as a core component of the tree-clearing legislation or carbon sink legislation of whatever you want to call it. Then undertaking a reasonable assessment as to what compensation would be appropriate on the case by case basis, with a lump sum payout being issued at the same time or not too long after the old growth / regrowth vegetation is locked up.

Or paying the difference in property values if the potential productivity of a place is significantly reduced and a landholder feels the need to move on.

Or paying half of the respective losses. Or something. But not NOTHING!

Compensation needs to be tangible, in line with the tangible restrictions imposed on landholders and not ethereal or far less tangible as it would be via an ETS.

I know you will not answer Ludwig.
But your blind hate is truly blind,to truth.
If at this very hour Tony Abbott became prime minister, with control of both houses.
He would never change the things you hate about Rudd.
Both party's while screaming abuse basically have the same growth in numbers plan for us.
No party ever could fund farmers in the way you ask, and none should, it would cost more than the proposed ETS.
I also believe you never read the Australian story, you should, hardly a left wing propaganda sheet.
He is down, poor bloke faces bankruptcy maybe but he was never ever going to achieve anything.

He’s down, after 52 days.

Well done Peter. May your mighty effort lead to some commonsense changes to the rotten compensationless aspect of the tree-clearing legislation and the rotten idea that governments can impose changes upon us in a grossly uneven manner, causing some people to lose their livelihoods while others are unaffected.

If there is one thing that should be taken from our constitution and our understanding of democracy, it is a fundamental sense of fairness, which should lead to concerted efforts being made in things like vegetation management regulations to make sure that it IS FAIR, or at least not grossly unfair to some.

----
Belly, you wrote:

<< If at this very hour Tony Abbott became prime minister, with control of both houses.
He would never change the things you hate about Rudd. >>

EXACTLY!!

I’ve said it a hundred times on OLO if I’ve said it once - the Libs and Labs are just as bad as each other!

If Abbott was in the chair and he kept on with the same sort of policies, I’d hate him just as much as I hate Rudd.

I’ve made that crystal clear Belly. I don’t understand how you don’t get it.

You seem to assume that because I detest Rudd, I must be an Abbott supporter.

Er, nooooooooo!

I do not wish to show lack of respect for you Ludwig.
Had you truly researched the issue you may well have not claimed PS is a hero, far from it.
And it appears, from your own words, you would transfer your hate to Abbott the day he took over.
What party then best matches you wants and wishes.
Is it not true none do fully? or maybe get close?
We each, must understand no government, ever could please every one, Ludwig you want a sustainable country pegged numbers, no growth in population.
Ok a nice thing , one we all should want.
But do you understand most do not share your wishes?
Most want house prices to continue to rise, if they already own one, jobs for their children.
More consumer goods.
But if you and I had our wish, would growth in our neighbors stop too?
Or would the day come we would be forced to share our land, maybe world wide commitment not just some country's is the only way it would work.

Ludwig, just so you know... when you post something like this:

<< Er, nooooooooo! >>

That's when most sensible folk turn off.

Just sayin'.

We each have self confidence and that is a good thing.
Humans also, each of us, tend to have more confidence in our opinions than those of others.
Built in to us, less some than others, is the ability to forgive our selfs for getting it wrong, we even refuse to see, we did get it wrong.
Today you only have to look to see a government well in front in the polls, an opposition, look truly at the take over of Liberalism, not likely to govern soon.
Bad opposition always leads to bad government,this fact will become more apparent in time.
But it also is human nature to grab others hobby horses and hitch a ride.
One rider may think of it as a bike the other a dragon, but both think it travels in there direction.
This thread tells us the true, pedal as much as you like the bike has no wheels, no substance.
Horse too is going up and down forever not moving.
AGW HOAX? the thread got it wrong too, a trip to no place many riders who in the end had to walk home.

What a weird little post CJ!

It is completely off-topic. And it is something that I would totally disagree with.

A bit of creative writing that places emphasis on important statements is perfectly fair and reasonable. If anything, it attracts readers’ attention rather than turning people off.

But much more importantly…..

Twice on this thread I’ve asked you about the apparent conflict between your condemnation of Peter Spencer and your non-address of my very significant point about his central gripe – the fundamental violation of our constitution and of our democratic principles inherent in the actions of government in locking up peoples’ land or vegetation to the extent of killing off their viability, without offering ANY compensation, thus leading to a grossly unfair cost for different people, from no cost in many cases to critically high costs in others.

This is an enormously important point, but one you continue to sidestep.

When you are seen to repeatedly ignore central points in the relevant debate, sensible folk turn off (:>)

Ludwig - what "fundamental violation of our constitution" exactly? Some of Spencer's loopier supporters have made this claim, but I've yet to hear what part of the Constitution has been violated.

Also, Spencer was offered compensation, but he refused it. I think you're backing a dud horse here, old son.

Sometimes silence is the most eloquent answer.
This thread died as it started, nothing less than what Ute gate was, a lie.
It too gathered its believers, they too forgot the words they used and that they got it wrong.
But it was enjoyable, and in a way informative.
we left right center and just walking a path others do not even see, are different.
But we all want to be right, and sometimes we just continue to be very wrong, rather than see truths we do not want too

<< …what "fundamental violation of our constitution" exactly? >>

A lack of fairness and morality. I mean, if we don’t hold these values with very high regard, where are we at?

These are fundamental principles in any constitution, code of conduct and democratic government, are they not?

CJ, I’m surprised that you weren’t highly interested in this aspect right from the start.

Given that you are a champion of minority groups or groups that face persecution or unfair treatment as you see it, such as asylum seekers, gays and Muslims in Australia, I would have thought that you’d be most interested in sussing out Peter Spencer’s claim that some farmers are facing a very raw deal regarding the locking up of their vegetation and productivity.

I would have thought that you’d be very interested in the basic principle of fairness regardless of who might have been pushing the issue or what the issue might have been.

See Peter’s letter to Rudd in which he expresses great concern about the fundamental breach of our constitution by the Rudd Government:

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/7043

See following his letter, a letter of support from constitutional lawyer and Professor of Public Law Suri Ratnapala, who wrote:

< Your cause is the cause of every Australian who cares about the rule of law, constitutional government and political morality. >

Below this, Alastair McRobert wrote;

< Deception, lies and deceit in hand with the denial of Australian citizens Constitutional Rights and basic Human Rights by the Australian Commonwealth Government and all levels of Government has lead to New South Wales farmer Peter Spencer, taking his plea to the streets. >

See also Suri Ratnapala’s paper on constitutional vandalism in relation to vegetation management, written in 2005:

http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume17/v17chap2.html

Yeah Ludwig, I've read all the spin from Spencer's lunar Right cheer squad, but that's all it amounts to, i.e. spin. Even according to your selective quotes there hasn't been any actual violation of the Constitution.

I'm surprised that someone like you, who claims to be an environmentalist, has been apparently taken in by this bunch of extreme right nutters. Or maybe not.

I understand that much of Spencer's support comes from the League of Rights. Have you considered joining them?

CJ, you are perplexing.

It seems to me that you are just putting up a mental brickwall to the blindingly obvious basic infringements of our rights, and not just Peter’s rights, that are inherent in his plight.

For you to do this really does seem to be at stark odds with your other humanitarian views.

But I can’t see this discussion going any further. I guess it is time to agree to disagree.

I can live with that, old mate :)