EPA wants environmental impact statements on water for droughted cattle

With drought biting hard in much of Queensland and NSW, many farmers are attempting to improve water distribution on their properties in order to give starving stock access to larger areas of grazing.  While this is happening, bureaucrats in the capital cities are fretting over whether this will threaten the environment: 

As the government steps up its drought relief, there's concern a move by the federal environment department might actually make it harder for graziers to roll out emergency water infrastructure. 

Millions of dollars have already been spent installing bores, pipes and troughs to keep starving stock alive and yesterday's federal package increased the government's contribution from half to 75 per cent. 

Yet, the federal environment department is currently investigating whether the 'proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points' represents a threat to the environment. 

It's a move that's incensed graziers and land managers who are questioning the department's decision to consider a nomination under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act. 

Northern Gulf NRM chief executive officer Grant Fawcett- based in Georgetown, about 400 kilometres west of Cairns - says getting the balance between economic and environmental benefits should be left to land managers. … 

… But graziers such as former Cattle Council president Greg Brown, who've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving waters on his property, 'Meadowbank', says it shows federal bureaucrats are out of touch and he hopes the review is ignored. 

"I think it's a rather strange sort of assertion myself. I would have thought that additional water in country would actually enhance the survival of wildlife and biodiversity." 

"Obviously people are entitled to establish watering points on their own property... it's entirely up to you with regard to putting watering points around the place and I have some doubts as to whether they're going to be consulting the federal department of environment.” …

The greatest single asset of most farmers and graziers is their land, which is what they rely on to provide the majority, if not all of their income.  They would be cutting their own throats economically were they to damage its productivity by carrying out actions with poor environmental outcomes.

They also understand the land and its workings far better than the average big city bureaucrat even though they don’t work for a government department and are not trained to apply theoretical ideas to hypothetical situations using self-righteousness as a guide.

Council global warming planning decisions suffer court setback

Local authorities in Australia have been moving increasingly towards becoming another arm of big government, micro managing local affairs.  One area they have entered with gusto is including hat tips to big eco in planning decisions.

Woe betide any resident with a tree threatening his house that is deemed to be ‘of significant biodiversity value’.  Old houses that have gone through a number of evolutions in the last century must not change in any renovation beyond some time in the past deemed appropriate by cultural censors, and must not have anything modern done with them.

The latest plaything of councils is to plan for global warming induced sea level changes with building restrictions on waterfront property.

A recent court decision may provide some relief: 

A NSW judgment has castigated a local council that permitted a couple to build a house on a beachfront plot, on condition they tore it down in 20 years assuming UN predictions of sea-level rise and coastal erosion come true. 

NSW Land and Environment Court senior commissioner Tim Moore struck down the condition, saying in his judgment that Great Lakes Council had held a "Damoclean sword" over Greg and Lesley Newton, who had sought to build on a vacant block at Jimmys Beach on the mid-north coast of NSW. 

The judgment has been hailed by a lobby group representing coastal home owners in the region, who are facing similar "time-limited consents" based on dire UN International Panel on Climate Change predictions of rising sea levels. 

It comes when, as revealed by The Australian, the NSW government, infuriated that some coastal councils are unquestioningly adopting the IPCC predictions and imposing often severe planning restrictions, is preparing to issue instructions for them to apply common sense.It is a victory for the deputy mayor of Great Lakes Council, Len Roberts, who led a minority of councillors against a majority headed by Mayor Jan McWilliams who voted to impose the time-limited consent on the Newtons. 

Commissioner Moore struck down Condition 7 in the development approval, which was limited to a period of 20 years, at which point the owners would have to hire a consultant to re-examine coastal hazards. Unless the council decided sea-level change and coastal erosion were not developing as predicted, the owners would have to abandon the house. …

Council climate change planning decisions are based on the precautionary principle in the wake of the sort of climate modeling that inspired a group of climate scientists to get caught in Antarctic sea ice that according to modeling, wasn’t supposed to be there, costing millions for their rescue.

While it is reasonable to prevent residential building under known flood levels, it is idiotic to base decisions on what are essentially unproven theories promulgated by the same sort of people who were predicting a CO2 based ice age back in the 70s.

Much of the issue of building approvals could be handled by the private sector. In order to get finance to put up a building, it is first necessary to make the banks feel secure by having insurance.  If the owner cannot convince any company to issue a policy on the construction, it simply will not be built unless the proposer is able to pay for it and take the risk of losing it.

Brisbane swingers club shut down by Council

Image: Leesa and Bryan Horn at their club Couples International. Source: The Courier-Mail

The only registered swingers club in Brisbane has been forced to close down over town planning requirements.

This has been done for of all things, lack of disabled access.  This was exacerbated by a refusal to grant a building permit for the required changes: 

The notice to close Couples International by June 26 will leave the city's "thriving" swinging set with nowhere to go and has pushed owners Bryan and Leesa Horn to the brink of financial ruin. They say the move will push "the scene" back into the seedy underground of dodgy hotels and suburban homes. 

Mrs Horn, 48, said a Brisbane City Council inspector turned up at their Holden St address, in Woolloongabba, and notified them of the complaint last November. The long-time couple, who are mild-mannered building designers by day, began making plans to ensure their "BYO nightclub" complied with disability requirements, including a lift and wheelchair access throughout. 

"The problem is we couldn't get a building permit for the changes," Mrs Horn said, adding the cost of making the building compliant under the Town Planning Act was not economically viable.  

Mr Horn, 62, said Couples International, which holds paid parties from Thursday to Saturday nights, had hosted several guests in wheelchairs "with no complaints." Mrs Horn said: "They came quite a few times, actually.” …

There would be little point in shutting down such an establishment in any case, as it is an activity that can be carried out anywhere where there is the required space, and is probably going on right now.  It is a consensual activity carried out by adults and like it or not, it is not the place of the authorities to interfere.

This does however; highlight the stupidity and inflexibility of planning laws especially given the fact that the place has been in operation for over ten years without any problems until now.

Enforcement of disabled access in private businesses by government instrumentalities is an idiotic knee jerk reflex, nanny state, feel good idea which has no place in a free society, and a gross violation of property rights.  While it is nice to think that the disabled can access such places, there should be no compulsion to provide it.

Businesses that fail to make their buildings accessible tend to lose out by not getting the custom of those affected.  It is not discrimination, not that that should be illegal either, the same risk applies to that.  If a business discriminates, it only benefits its competitors who don’t.

It is outrageous that a small club catering to a small minority of the population should be forced to shut down over the possibility of a smaller percentage of a substantial minority of potential clients having some difficulty in accessing the place.

This is not beneficial to the public at large.  It only helps the bigger well heeled clubs and venues that have space available for such activities with what the council deems to be proper access.  These places have the funds to hire lobbyists and give the right sort of political donations, for which they expect the right sort of backhanders such as keeping the competition at bay.    

Australian farmers threaten to shoot down drones

Image: Day by Day 

Far left front group, the anti rural industry hate mongers at Animal Liberation, have announced that they have purchased a ‘state of the art’ drone that will be used to carry out surveillance of livestock practices by land holders.  Such a move would be marginally if at all legal, and probably only allowable by authorities turning a blind eye.

NSW Farmers Association President Fiona Simson has objected on the basis of invasion of privacy, while David Warriner of the Northern Territory Cattleman’s Association is claiming the right to shoot them down: 

FARMERS may resort to shooting down drones sent to monitor their properties for animal rights abuses, according to the head of the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association.  Mr Warriner said farmers were doing a good job of ensuring the welfare of their animals without having their privacy invaded by drones. 

Rights group Animal Liberation has purchased a state of the art drone it says could hover as little as 10 metres above farmers' properties to monitor lovestock conditions.  But NT Cattlemen's Association head David Warriner suggested any drones could be shot down. 

“It's very dangerous and I would also say that if it's going to be within 10 metres of livestock it's going to cause a lot of disturbance, and we would certainly object to it on those two bases,” he told ABC radio.  “It wouldn't surprise me if someone had a crack at one that was annoying them. They would I reckon. 

“It wouldn't be hard to shoot a drone down with a shotgun, would it?” Mr Warriner said.NSW Farmers Association President Fiona Simson said the move was an unnecessary invasion of privacy, as farmers were already committed to high animal welfare standards.

It is difficult to imagine any reason for Animal Lib to believe that they have any right to launch such operations against farmers other than their belief that they are above and beyond the law.  Farming operations already carry a heavy burden of official scrutiny from the government as well as from consumer organizations, without the imposition of busybodies whose only standing is a direct line to 4 Corners.

This action is likely to endanger livestock by causing panic, especially among yarded animals.  The likelihood of drones approaching at ten meters height and stampeding stock under such circumstances is likely to cause death and injuries on a large scale; something landholders are careful to avoid.

Such a move is dangerous to mounted stockmen and the presence of unauthorized drones is a serious threat to helicopter operations, which are common these days.  The fact that mustering is taking place is likely to increase the probability of these idiots moving drones in, thus increasing the danger.

Landholders need to blow these things out of the sky immediately and frequently.

Landholders duded again

Rural landholders are a tenacious lot.  They regularly battle bushfires, floods, drought, and everything else that the idiosyncratic extremes that is the Australian climate can throw at them.  Despite this they manage to feed and clothe the nation while generating surplus production that enhances our balance of trade.

Apart from nature, they have a constant battle to deal with adverse government decisions in relation to land use, water rights, mineral and gas extraction, even the right to control weeds on their properties.  Constant vigilance is needed to head off the more extreme lobby groups, determined to create chaos such as the live cattle export ban, which crippled the northern cattle industry.

Now it has been announced that when they find themselves, on the wrong end of a government funded land rights claim they are on their own, rather than receiving assistance to deal with it: 

As part of budget cuts in a "tight fiscal environment", Ms Roxon will stop from January 1 the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme, which provides lawyers and native title officers to three pastoral industry bodies. The government will continue funding indigenous claimants 

The NT Cattlemen's Association, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of WA and AgForce Queensland have been desperately lobbying the Minister, saying the cessation of funding would mean native title claims will end up in protracted court cases instead of being settled by consent. 

The National Farmers Federation also argues the legal and court costs to the commonwealth will be "far greater than the current expenditure" on the scheme if it ends and its demise would be "legal chaos". 

"(Individual pastoralists) will have to decide whether to withdraw, seek other legal representation or, most likely, muddle through being self-represented," says NFF chief executive Matt Linnegar. … 

… But the Prime Minister defended the move, announced in the 2011 budget, saying it was the government's "anticipation" the funding cut would not "equate to respondents disengaging" from the native title process.  "We are talking about many respondents that are commercially viable entities . . . being able to deal with native title through their ordinary business costs," she said. 

Federal Court judge John Logan has made comments on the value of the legal aid for pastoralists, saying in an August judgment that it had done much to "dispel the tensions and anxiety (among pastoralists) . . . to result in the efficient progress and consensual resolution of a native title claim." … 

… Ms Roxon writes. "In accordance with the principles of the access to justice framework, we need to ensure that limited funds are directed to those most in need of assistance."

This is a highly questionable assertion given the degree to which Aborigines are assisted already: 

Every year, $100,000 of our taxes is spent for each remote indigenous Australian. In 2008-09 Australian government indigenous expenditure reached $22 billion. If these funds were ending the shameful dereliction of remote communities, they would be money well spent. But high spending has barely reduced extremes of dysfunction. On balance, it is perpetuating indigenous disadvantage. Trawling through government expenditures is not riveting, but if the festering sore of remote communities is not to go on and on, how public funding contributes to the culture of grog, ganja and gangs must be understood. 

The 2010 Indigenous Expenditure Report was prepared by the Productivity Commission for a Steering Committee of bureaucrats in charge of federal, state and territory indigenous policies. For the first time, we have an accounting of indigenous expenditure. In 2008-09 Australian governments spent $17 billion on indigenous persons accessing mainstream services and $5 billion on indigenous-only services. The report shows that every year this translates to an average of $40,000 for each indigenous Australian compared to $18,000 for each non-indigenous Australian. But these per capita figures conceal rather than reveal real indigenous expenditures. …

Regardless of the ability to pay, or whether one side is disadvantaged, it is nothing short of reprehensible to create a situation where one group is receiving taxpayer funding to launch legal proceedings against another which has to meet the costs of defending themselves.

Green groups attempt to hijack graziers

While this issue refers to the Australian situation, any reader from elsewhere should read the original article in order to understand what the issue really is, as one day it will come to you.  The Greens are international.

For some time there has been a campaign running in the rural press purportedly aiming at establishing standards for ‘sustainable’ production in the grazing industry, especially in North Queensland.  In NQ, the Great Barrier Reef tends to be the theme with ‘responsible graziers’ being called on to cooperate in producing ‘sustainably’ in order to protect it.  The World Wildlife Fund is behind it.

Rural producers have over a long period been improving their environmental performance due simply to the fact that allowing deterioration of their prime asset, their land is not in their own self-interest and will reduce their income.  Despite this they have been beaten around the heads constantly and a number of correspondents express the need ‘to be seen to be doing the right thing’.

Producers who want to do ‘the right thing’ can easily do so; there is no need to hug the WWF vipers to their bosoms inn order to be seen to do it.  David Leyonhjelm, an agribusiness consultant has weighed in on the subject: 

Some in the cattle industry, including the Cattle Council, have apparently fallen for the good cop – bad cop con used by environmental lobby groups to manipulate industries. 

In May this year the Australian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef was introduced to the beef industry as the local version of a scheme commenced in 2010 in the US with the aim “to advance sustainable production of beef”. Among its members is the environmental group WWF. 

The scheme has been described by Senator Ron Boswell as an extortion racket, who warned cattle producers to be wary. A 2011 report by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) entitled “Naked extortion? Environmental NGOs imposing [in]voluntary regulations on consumers and business” shows there is good reason for the warning. 

The racket typically begins with some fairly extreme criticisms of industry practices, based on unrepresentative examples and misleading or manipulated information. The industry is accused of harming the planet, destroying the future of our children and being bad corporate citizens. There are threats of a campaign to expose the industry, focusing on its brand and image or those of its major customers. 

The industry knows it’s mostly nonsense but also that it’s difficult to explain to consumers. Industry representatives therefore engage in “dialogue” with a moderate lobby group (eg WWF), which appears to have reasonable expectations and sympathy for the industry. Perhaps a voluntary code of practice could be developed; it is suggested, to preserve its “social licence”. We’ll describe it as industry best practice and establish a certification scheme so everyone can prove how responsible they are. 

In the background lurks the bad cop (often Greenpeace, although various others can fill the role), making threatening noises about negative publicity, boycotts and disruptive direct action. Don’t worry about them, the good cop says. Stick with us and we’ll keep you safe. 

A code of practice is developed which some are not happy about. Suck it up, their representatives tell them. It’s better than having the bad cop hounding us. Get certified and all will be well. Oh and by the way, there is a fee for certification. Here’s the invoice. 

Over time the code is revised as new issues are introduced and standards raised. What about your use of nanotechnology? How about gender equality? Your unacceptable carbon footprint? And by the way, sustainability means what we say, not you.Miraculously, some issues melt away when a higher fee for certification is agreed to. Money also finds its way into the bad cop’s coffers, well out of public sight. …

When in the clutches of green groups it becomes apparent that any ideas of sustainability of environmental consciousness are only valid if they are being handed down from the green higher authority.  Any attempt at reasonable compromise with these people will only be accepted on total accession to their terms. 

Cigarette plain packaging, has it worked on marijuana?

Today Big Prohibition is celebrating its High Court victory over ‘Big Tobacco’ on the issue of plain packaging of cigarettes. Tobacco companies had challenged the legislation to have all cigarettes sold in drab green packs without logos or company identification on the basis of denial of intellectual and other property rights.

In retrospect, this may have been a mistake as property rights are not a widely respected concept in Australia. Rural landholders have largely borne the brunt of the assault on private property until now with a myriad of laws restricting their rights to carry out activities, from building right through to weed control. A quick check with them would have let Phillip Morris know, it was flogging a dead horse on the issue.

But nonetheless, big government is crowing:

At a later media conference Ms Roxon said: "Many other countries around the world... will take heart from the success of this decision today.” "Governments can take on big tobacco and win and it's worth countries looking again at what the next appropriate step is for them.”

The big tobacco companies had argued the plain packaging laws amounted to an acquisition of their valuable trademarks without proper compensation. The laws mandate that cigarettes be sold in drab olive-green packs and ban all commercial logos. Packs will be distinguishable only by printed brand names in a standard font and size.

In a statement this morning the court said: “At least a majority of the Court is of the opinion that the (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Act is not contrary to s 51(xxxi) (of the Constitution).” …

… Ms Roxon said the plain packaging laws were a vital preventative public health measure, which removed the last way for tobacco companies to promote their products. “This decision is a relief for every parent who worries about their child picking up this deadly and addictive habit,” she said.

Curiously, only the manufacturers seem to note the fact that the legislation will probably be counterproductive with BATC spokesman Scott McIntire stating, ''... The illegal cigarette black market will grow further when all packs look the same and are easier to copy.''

The legislation is in fact an exercise in cognitive dissonance. Illicit drugs such as marijuana, coke, heroin, speed, and the rest are, and always have been, sold in plain packaging. Manufacturers and distributors of these products seem to studiously avoid the use of identifying logos; in fact they avoid anything that can be used to identify them. Even with increasingly draconian measures being used to stamp out their activities, sales of their products seem to be increasing.

Big wowser, big prohibition, and their ally, big government have never learned the lessons of history in relation to attempts to ban popular products. In their jaded view of society it seems that, “A ten thousand year old record of failure proves nothing; this time, doing the same thing, it’s going to work.”

That seems to be the definition of something I can’t quite put my finger on.

Prostitution judgment; Motel owners’ property rights trampled

Cartoon: Courtesy; Defending the Undefendable

Sex workers have hailed a recent judgment by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal as a victory although it has some disturbing ramifications for property rights within the state and nationwide. The ruling effectively means that owners of accommodation do not have the right to be selective about what guests they accept.

Prostitution has been around for nearly as long as mankind itself and has been the subject of prudish attempts to stamp it out for most of that time. It is probably the oldest existing example of the failure of prohibition policies to achieve their stated aim. Such policies, like those on drugs, alcohol, and a host of others, not only fail but also tend to create a burgeoning industry in corruption and kickbacks.

Proving the old adage that the government cannot get anything right, the legalization of prostitution has created the situation where accommodation owners now have an obligation to provide premises for the conduct of this activity:

Prostitutes have descended upon small towns near the large mines in record numbers over the past few years, determined to take a slice of the mining boom. They advertise their arrival in town in the local newspaper and see up to 10 clients a night. Motel owners claim they deter other customers.

But when the owners of the Drover's Rest Motel in the mining town of Moranbah, which services the Peak Downs mine in Queensland, tried to turn away a sex worker known as "Karlaa" she sued in the tribunal, using the Anti-Discrimination Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of lawful sexual activity.

She argued her use of the bed was no different from somebody who checked into a motel and used the phone or internet for business. Prostitution is legal in Queensland. …

The full judgment has not yet been released, but QCAT confirmed Karlaa's victory. She is seeking $30,000 compensation.

Accommodation Association of Australia chief executive Richard Munro said the industry would have to examine the judgment before deciding whether to appeal "but in general terms, we say that it should be up to the owner, the proprietor, the licensee, to protect the amenity of their business."

This is fairly typical of one of the major problems facing Western society today, in that ‘rights’ are being determined by bodies with no real concept of the underlying right to individual freedom. The result is that the right of some persons to do as they please appear to trump the rights of others to make a similar choice where those choices are in conflict.

Governments have little understanding of the principle of non-coercion, under which transactions are meant to be voluntary and involve reasonable agreement between the parties involved, in the absence of force.

It is a standard business practice for the owners or operators to have a target clientele and set standards to encourage that group, which in some cases may preclude certain activities taking place there, or encouraging others. Their right to do so has been squelched in this case.

Farmer beats CSG Company in court.

Image: Courtesy, Queensland Country Life.

Over thirty years in the drilling and mining industry has taught me the need to have good relations with landholders on whose properties you are working. As a rule, it takes little more than a bit of courtesy, common sense, and cooperation to achieve this. While on most occasions a mining company has the law on its side, it is best to avoid the necessity to resort to force of law.

A few smarts can make the difference between drawing water from the property or having to send the tanker to the next available source, which could be 50 km away. Unfortunately, some of the companies in the modern era seem to feel able to ride roughshod over the landholder. In this case, the landholder fought back and won, which may change the whole relationship:

A SUPREME Court decision has reversed the trend of courts ruling against farmers as conflicts between landholders and the resource sector intensified in recent years.

But in an announcement strongly welcomed in the bush, the Supreme Court in Brisbane ruled late last week that Eidsvold grazier Michael Baker was given insufficient mapping information by coal seam gas (CSG) company QGC about the location of a pipeline to be constructed on his property and the activities planned for his land.

The decision will force QGC to restart its application for a State government compulsory access order, known as a Part 5 Permission. The decision also struck out Land Court proceedings QGC initiated just days before last Friday's Supreme Court decision was handed down.

In her ruling on Friday, Supreme Court Justice Jean Dalton found the application for the Part 5 permission lodged by QGC was invalid and Mr Baker had not been provided "procedural fairness" because QGC had provided insufficient mapping details about the exact location of the planned natural gas pipeline - and, when details were finally provided, less than 48 hours to respond before the statutory 20-business day consultation period expired and the material was passed on to then-State mining minister Sterling Hinchliffe to make a final decision on QGC's application.

QGC said its pipeline was in the "public interest" and argued in court that it did not have to provide the disputed information to the landholder.

‘Public interest’ is a filthy concept in that it seems to accept the erroneous idea that if one party can claim that a larger number of people will be benefitted than will suffer, the minority should have their rights stripped away. Rights are rights regardless of majority or minority status, and deserve to be respected.

It is great to see property owners get a win over modern day carpetbaggers, who are ready to use the power of the state in the interests of the government in order to get what they want without the need to avoid being a mob of pricks.

In court, ‘public interest’ tends to be the last refuge of the economic scoundrel.

Barnaby on where we’re going wrong.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

Its fairly common among libertarians in Australia other than the twenty six pure ones, to look over the fence to see whether there are any politicians from the dark side (LNP, Libs, ALP, Greens etc), that are worth feeding or at least, have any potential. Generally we find the outlook pretty bleak, with most of them compulsive oxygen thieves, and few worth standing room in the back paddock.

Shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey caused a stir of interest when during his speech to the Grattan institute he claimed that John Stuart Mill and John Locke had been inspirations to him. We were somewhat mystified as to what influence they had on him and after viewing his statements we came to the conclusion that Mill and Locke must have played Rugby Union.

Barnaby Joyce is no libertarian, more a conservative agrarian socialist, in some ways a carbon copy of Bob Katter except rational. He was roundly criticized in 2009 by everybody form Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry down for mentioning the possibility of a US default. Less than a year later the US tottered on the brink over the debt ceiling.

He has however made it in the real world outside of the political merry go round and has a genuine understanding of the damage done by petty regulation, but as a conservative will seek a government solution. In his recent speech, “Politics and the Environment,” he gives some examples:

Homestead is a very remote property along a dirt road owned by two people, Ray White and Theresa White. …In 2003, some DERM officers arrived at their place to discuss with them a dispute about advice that the Department had given them about clearing trees on their own place. Trees that were formerly owned by them. They were acquired by the state without so much of a cent of compensation.

I am always very suspect when the community divests an individual of an asset to invest it in the ownership of the state without payment. We have tried that trick before, it was called communism and it didn't work. …

Ray and Theresa White were approached by DERM officers who entered into discussions about what may or may not have happened on their place. As good country people they had an open and frank discussion to the best of their knowledge at the gate of their place. Later on we find out that that conversation was secretly taped by the officers and used as evidence against them.

Now that might be legal, but it is also disgusting. If that is what we have become then we are less than I thought we were. …

Then there is David Brown, who actually does have a bit of money. He has a property near Warwick. He wanted to install a centre pivot. A centre pivot is meant to go around, naturally enough, in circles. But it can't go around in circles because it gets to one spot and it gets to a tree. Because there is a tree, the centre pivot has to stop and he is not allowed to move the tree. I live in western Queensland and we are not running out of trees. We have quite a few. …

It is not just here. There was in Victoria, two dead trees, and they are building a road. They come up against the two dead trees. Now little old me would think that you would just knock the two trees over. But you can't do that anymore. They had to transplant the dead trees. This is totally and utterly absurd. …

Then I was talking to a farmer from Nimbin. …He was growing organic macadamias, as he would be. All of a sudden he came against the local environmental plans legislation that was handed to him by his local government. His local government had designated his land as what is known as E2, which means that he is not allowed to change the nature of his farming. His asset which was secure at the bank for a number of millions of dollars, was at that moment, halved in value by reason of a council decision.

The rest can be found here.

Greens leader Christine Milne, agricultures friend.

Farmers really need to hug more vipers to their bosoms.

Cartoon: By Bill Leak.

New Greens leader Christine Milne wants to establish political support among rural Australians and "progressive" businesses as a new strategy to advance the party. ‘Progressive businesses’ are those seen by her to be in the ‘new economy’ and which should be doing more to promote a low-carbon economy. Apparently they are not lobbying hard enough for subsidies and special deals:

"If ever the Greens were needed in Australian politics in public life in redefining the debate in Australia, it's now," Senator Milne said. "I'm going out there as a country person to say to other country people it's time the Greens and country and rural and regional Australian really worked together.” …

Senator Joyce said that while the Greens' concern for the rapid development of the coal-seam gas industry was reflected in some rural communities, most other Greens policies were anti-bush. "The Greens have a problem with coal-seam gas, as does the Coalition," Senator Joyce said. "But the Greens also have problems with rodeos, irrigation, live cattle exports, and they want a 50 per cent top tax rate and death duties. …

"I would welcome her (Senator Milne) in some of my communities. Any town hall, any time you want. My tactic would be to simply tell people what her policies are. People know in the back of their minds that the Greens' policies are dangerous.”

Last year the Greens supported demands for legislation to protect their land from coal seam gas and mining. When the draught Planning Policy for Strategic Cropping Land was delivered it was found that the proposed law would also restrict what landowners could do.

Senator Ron Boswell has outlined the extremities of the party:

It is obvious that Bob Brown is resigning today because he knows his time is up and he wants to go out on a high. Brown knows that the party is losing the environmental message the party was based on and is now being used by the far left as a way to spread their extreme agenda. He is just trying to get out before that happens.

Without Brown, the far left and extremists will steamroll over the others and become the new reigning force within the Greens.

These members include the now Deputy Leader, Adam Bandt, a self-identified former member of the Left Alliance that once admonished ultra-left groups such as Resistance and the International Socialists for not being left-wing enough.

Bandt has referred to the Greens as a ‘bourgeois party’ that can be used as a Trojan horse for pushing an anti-capitalist, socialist Marxist agenda. He has identified the Greens as the best avenue to achieving socialism in Australia. …

These people do not appear to be the party to attract the bush.

One rule for farmers, another for DERM staff.

Something that is becoming a regular feature in the rural press is stories of landholders being threatened and/or prosecuted for land management practices that fall foul of their bureaucratic rules. They vary from clearing invasive weeds like turkey bush and parthenium weed right through to creating firebreaks, the list is endless. Clearly farmers property rights mean little in these times.

Draconian penalties and an endless process of harassment and costly legal expenses seem to now be the order of the day. This is happening in all states including Queensland, but an interesting case has emerged here in which a Department of Environmental Resource Management staffer seems to have been given special privileges. Doug Gillett reports in ‘Rural Weekly’ (an inclusion in some provincial papers) on what appears to be such a case:

A Lowmead grazier has accused a Department of Environmental Resource Management employee of destroying protected vegetation on a camping and water reserve.

Lynton Hayman has called for a full investigation into the felling of large gums and bloodwoods in the granite creek water and camping reserve. He also alleged that signs identifying the area as a reserve open to the public have been removed from the property.

The bushland area was leased from DERM by an employee of the State Government department for grazing purposes. …

A spokesman for DERM said it had been notified in advance of the leaseholders intention to fell trees to protect a fence line on the reserve.

(However) Mr. Hayman said the trees had been felled far away from any visible fence line. …

Apart from the strong probability that a government department leasing ground under its control to its own employees being a conflict of interest, questions arise as to the process of granting the lease and whether special privileges were granted, given the removal of the public access signs. The column is not online but an image with it is of stumps with no fence present.

Charged for controlling parthenium weed.

By Dale Stiller on behalf of Property Rights Australia.

Property Rights Australia chairman, Joanne Rea said it is beyond belief that the Qld government would prosecute anyone for controlling weeds especially parthenium, a declared noxious, exotic weed which spreads aggressively into neighbouring property if not treated.

This follows hot on the heels of the capricious prosecution of Trenton Hindman of SW Queensland for renovating country infested with the invasive woody weed, turkey bush.

This reveals a pattern of unacceptable activism by some departmental officers. “What is the agenda of the State Government in pursuing people who have, in essence, done nothing wrong? Is common sense ever going to return to the pursuit of justice in this State?” Mrs. Rea, Chairman of Property Rights Australia said.”

The above quote was included in an article on page 9 in the 29th December 2011 issue of the QCL written by Troy Rowlings called, “Moore grazier defends weed ‘damage’ charge.” (not online - Ed)

Peter Leo lives on the farm that his family first settled in 1897 not far out of the hamlet of Linville. In 1911 a railway easement was cut through the farm and was used for this purpose until its close in 1989. Then in 2008 the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) took a sub-lease from the Department of Transport and Main Roads for the rail corridor land which was previously known as the Brisbane Valley Railway Line that ran from Wulkuraka Railway Station to Blackbutt. The DIP then started to develop the Brisbane Valley Rail Trail as part of the Queensland Government’s South East Queensland Active Trails Strategy and community greenspace network. The rail trail is supposed to be for walking, cycling and horse riding.

Photo sourced from ATHRA

The start of Peter Leo’s recent problems was the floods in January 2011; the same floods known nationally and internationally for the havoc they wreaked along the Lockyer Creek and the Brisbane River. After the flood waters had long gone, weeds germinated. In a phone call that I had with Peter he related not only of the abnormal amount of weeds but the variety of them, some that had not been seen before. Amongst the normal weeds such as noogoora burr were patersons curse and parthenium. The parthenium plants were found on the rail trail and Peter sent a sample to the Queensland Herbarium who confirmed that the plants were indeed parthenium.

The Brisbane Valley Rail Trail employs a Trail Ranger to whom Peter Leo reported the weeds on at least two occations but no action was forthcoming. Peter wrote a letter to the Minister whose portfolio included the DIP. When a new minister, Paul Lucas took over this department a letter was despatched to him as well. In all his efforts to have action taken about weeds on the rail trail after 8 months Peter received no satisfactory response. An unwelcomed response was for the Director, Resource and Landscape in DIP, Steve MacDonald, sending a letter of demand for records of any agreement that the family had with the railway. An unlikely event that even if there was any agreement of the chances of documents surviving from 1911.

By mid-August the weeds were out of control, Peter did not wish for the weeds to go to seed so he decided to control the weeds by the means of a tractor & a disc implement to plough the weeds in. “A light harrow job””, as Peter called it. At the end of August parthenium was found by Peter & a friend on the rail trail. Peter sprayed the parthenium and also ploughed again. This was the first time that he had ever found parthenium but controlling weeds and encouraging natural grasses had been practiced by Peter along this easement ever since the railway had left.

On this map the railway is shown as a dotted line. Peter Leo's farm is just south of Linville.

After the weed control had been done the Trail Ranger turned up & reported it to the DIP. As a result a policeman paid a visit to Peter Leo, the policeman inspected the situation & left presumably satisfied that no charge was warranted. However the next day the policeman came back with the news that he had been instructed to charge Peter Leo.

Peter found himself taken in, finger printed, a swab taken for DNA and charged. Peter had been told to plead guilty and take a $100 fine. In a state of disbelieve and indignant at his treatment Peter told me that he decided, as he put it, “I’m not a criminal; I am not pleading guilty.”

He is convinced that the orders to charge him came from at a higher level in the DIP. The minister Paul Lucas was well aware of the situation, in fact Peter was told that “Paul Lucas had hit the roof”. Peter believes that this is a “political charge and that he has been subjected to intimation” and also that, “Independent discretion has been taken away from the police.”

If this is what occurred it is a very serious situation and of great concern for the administration of justice in Queensland.

Charging a person for controlling a declared noxious, exotic weed such as parthenium is bad enough but what is even more incredible is the charge brought against him, that he has to appear before a court for mention on January 6th – wilful damage.

Peter Leo was told that he had damaged the integrity of the rail trail.

Peter Leo told me that he “just wants to be left alone”, but I can tell you from listening to him that he will not roll over on this one just to be rid of the situation as soon as he can; this is one determined man.

Threat of $1.1 million fine for building cubby house.

We are plodding along at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse. – Barry Goldwater, 1964.

Image: The offending cubby house. Picture: Tracee Lea, Source – News.com.au.

It is often said that government in Australia is out of control, a situation that could be a great deal worse if the federal government was not mired in gridlock of minority status. Probably the worst example of draconian overregulation though tends to come from local authorities where minor political functionaries in hundreds of councils across Australia impose their will on the residents of their allotted ministate, usually claiming that the state or federal governments require it.

You just couldn’t make up though, the reaction of Wollongong City Council to the building of a child’s cubby house:

Earlier this year, Sonja Keller and husband Andrew Bergmann used leftover building supplies to build the cubby for their son, Yaan, 9, behind their home at Tumbling Waters Resort in Stanwell Tops.

They returned from holidays before Christmas to find mail telling them to remove the cubby as it posed a bushfire threat and they did not have "development consent".

"Council has become aware that a cubby house has been erected within the premises adjacent to a dwelling; within a bushfire prone and environmentally sensitive area, without development consent," the council wrote.

"Failure to comply with the order is an offence under section 125 of the (Environmental Planning and Assessment) Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is $1,100,000.00 and a further daily penalty of $110,000.00.

"If the order is not complied with, Council may give effect to the order and recover the costs of doing so from you."

Mrs Keller said council staff first inspected the cubby house earlier this month.
"Three people from the council came to inspect some of the work we had done at the resort," he said.

"I thought they were joking when they said they needed to look at the cubby house."

She said the cubby was barely visible from the street and no more of a fire risk than other garden furniture.

"This decision is a joke. It's ridiculous to say it's in a fire-sensitive area," she said. "The garden shed is in a fire-sensitive area. The pergola is in a fire-sensitive area. The whole house is in a fire-sensitive area."

Years ago someone said that you would suffer a lower penalty for murder than what you would cop for breaking some of the government's ‘orderly marketing’ laws, and this is fairly consistent with this thought. It seems that the smaller the authority, the more snarky and authoritarian the petty functionary that is attracted to it is.

The March of the Triffids

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition 


Australia's open spaces and grasslands are being invaded by aggressive woody weeds of the eucalypt family and the feral plants they shelter such as lantana and rubber vine. This invasion is assisted by a fifth column of misguided tree huggers and climate alarmists who demand that these environmental weeds be protected and their expansion subsidised by the taxpayer!

Like Triffids, the invaders are stealthing out from every patch of bush, surrounding homes and towns, consuming grasslands and displacing grassland birds and animals, both native and domesticated.

This invasion started in neglected parks and conservation areas and was given a massive boost by the Kyoto inspired bans on controlling regrowth, even on freehold land. The final stupidity is the use of carbon credit finance to encourage the deliberate planting of woody weeds on land currently used to produce food and fibres.

For as long as humans have lived in Australia, woody weeds have been kept in check by their natural predator – bushfire. But more reckless policies, promoted by ill-advised urban tree lovers, have prevented the regular use of fire in many areas.

As wildfires in several areas have shown, the heavy fire load in this creeping bush becomes a lurking menace as dangerous to neighbours as an unexploded bomb. It must be kept in check by periodic small fires, well managed grazing animals or mechanical means. "Shutting it up" is an unacceptable and unnatural practice.

The explorers Leichhardt and Mitchell both reported the native use of fire to restore the grasslands and both remarked on the grassland and open forest they encountered. However, since their time, there has been an explosion of woody weeds into the Mitchell grass country, and into many other grasslands. It is like a cancer on the land.

These scrubby weeds and carbon credit plantations also harbour all the pests and predators that threaten native wildlife and domestic livestock – feral foxes, pigs, dogs and cats.

The global warming alarmists and others have led us into deadly delusion. Trees do not control the climate, and eucalypt plantations and infestations are not worthy of elevation to saintly status in the plant kingdom. Just like grasses, herbs and algae, they are part of the grand carbon cycle on which all life depends. If humans need to worship and protect any land plant species it should be not useless invasive woody weeds, but the valuable grasses and legumes including cereals such as wheat, oats, barley and rye, pastures such as Mitchell grass and buffell grass, legumes such as lucerne, clover, soya beans and siratro and giant grasses such as sugar cane, sorghum and maize.

It is strange that governments keen to protect farm land from coal mining are promoting policies that result in the destruction of grazing land by state protected weeds.

Viv Forbes

"By virtually ensuring that many grazing enterprises will become uneconomic, as unaddressed tree thickening continues, we are opening the door to unsustainable practices and severe damage to this State’s huge land and woodland resource base."
 - Dr Bill Burrows, 2005 "Fact and Fiction supporting the Vegetation Management Act."

In the above report Dr Burrows looks at the alleged scientific foundations of Queensland’s Vegetation Management Act. He shows that aboriginals used regular frequent fires to maintain the grasslands and grassy woodland that covered much of Australia when European settlers arrived. Since then the reduced burning has allowed dramatic growth in tree cover which displaces grassland birds and animals, increases the risk of fierce fires and reduces runoff into rivers and dams. 'Protection" of this invasive vegetation is a foolish policy.

"What a dumb legacy the so called ‘Smart State’ will pass on to its inheritors".

Comments from the Leichhardt expedition (1845), mainly from Gilbert's journal:

"on 28th February . . . emerged upon "beautifully undulating country covered with the most luxuriant grass". (Isaac River area).

"the most beautiful description of country . . well covered with grass and well adapted for sheep . . ". (Suttor River area).

"from a hill near our camp we can see to eastward a broad extent of valley with numerous fine lakes. Smoke from Natives' fires is seen in all directions around us." (Valley of Lagoons).

Expeditions by Major Thomas Mitchell, 1830-1845, mainly from "Journal of Mitchell into Qld".

"Across the mountains (in Victoria), Mitchell found excellent grazing land - land richer than any grazing land he had found in New South Wales and named this country "Australia Felix".

"We now had before us (central Queensland) water and grass in abundance to a distance as unlimited and indefinite as our hopes of discovery" (p. 94)

"…natives had disappeared having previously set fire to the grass" (p. 101)

"… travelling amongst very luxuriant grass" (p. 106).

See this also on how the aborigines created the grasslands of Australia:

Farmer jailed for firebreak while Department starts wildfires.

Official who ordered fire, previously ruled incompetent by Coronial inquest.

Image: Some of the aftermath of the WA DEC burnoff.

The recent escape of a controlled burn in Western Australia burned out thousands of hectares of land and has destroyed thirty-nine homes. The burn was ordered by the Department of Environment and Conservation, in a national park as a fuel reduction measure. The fire is now under control but not out.

While there is incredulity that the department would order a fire during summer with hot days and high winds forecast, it has now been revealed that one of the officers who ordered the burn was ruled incompetent by a coronial inquest into the deaths of three truckies who were incinerated when a road was prematurely opened:

A government official who approved the prescribed burn that led to the destructive Margaret River bushfire was labelled extremely incompetent and stood down over the fire deaths of three truck drivers in 2007, before being reinstated. …

WA Coroner Alastair Hope found Mr Commins and two other DEC officers had failed to consider key weather information when they approved the reopening of a road when a bushfire was burning in the Boorabbin National Park in WA's Goldfields region in December 2007. “This constituted extreme incompetence,” Mr Hope found in the inquest into the deaths.

Mr Commins stood down from his DEC post after the inquest but was reinstated last year by the department's Director-General Keiran McNamara, who has said he stands by that decision. The DEC has confirmed Brad Commins approved the prescribed burn, along with other senior fire officers, at Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park near Margaret River in September.

Meanwhile a farmer has been jailed for contempt of court over dozing firebreaks after a stop clearing court order at the behest of the same department. While court orders are not to be ignored there is a special irony in this one owing to the fact some farmers have had to take the department to court in order to obtain permission to make firebreaks:

"The DEC brought the action and they claim you can't touch any country even though you own it.” Mr Rogers said Mr Szulc argued that he had already cleared the land in 1984 and that he was only clearing re-growth when putting in a 20-metre wide fire break he thought necessary to prevent a fire hazard after the injunction.

"The DEC claimed it was pristine bushland, but it was not original bushland," Mr Rogers said. In a letter to Farm Weekly in June, Mr Szulc said the DEC was out of control.

"Some of their area managers are making disastrous decisions affecting lives, public safety, the environment, native and introduced animals and birds. The DEC lights fires in summer time, which have a habit of getting out of control, causing massive palls of smoke to the detriment of public health.

Mr Szulc pointed out that having the DEC manage land clearing applications was a conflict of interest:

"In the past, senior departmental staff have been quoted as saying that there should be no more land clearing. It seems that this attitude is still current as applications by farmers are rarely granted. If an individual appeals the refusal the action is held up for unexpected lengthy periods. Private property rights mean nothing to the department.”

Pastoralists and Graziers Association (PGA) private property rights policy director Milan Zaklan said under legislation farmers could re-clear land if it had been done within 10 years of the original clearing. But if they were one day over 10 years they could be prosecuted.

"The rule needs changing," Mr Zaklan said.

The rules and regulations, which cover what landowners may do on their properties, are even now, growing exponentially along with constant exploration by bureaucrats to expand the parameters of the powers conferred on them by such legislation. These actions create considerable sovereign risk to agriculture in this country, and are creating the situation whereby landholders are being reduced to serfdom under the overlords of the state.