JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth — starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!

It’s a trial described as potentially “bigger than Mabo”

Peter Spencer’s story is one I didn’t think could happen in Australia. He is the farmer in New South Wales who bought a farm and then lost 80% of it when rules changed to stop people clearing native vegetation. Unable to use most of his property, he was slowly bankrupted. Though he broke no law, he lost his life’s work and his beloved farm in late 2010. There was no way out. He couldn’t sell the property — who would buy a piece of land that could not be used? Farmers all around Australia lost billions of dollars in assets as the value of their land and produce declined. The legality of this is finally being tested in the Federal Court in Sydney starting this Monday, November 24, and continuing for the next three weeks. Hold your breath. This could be an enormous case, with implications for land holders across the continent.

Much of his farm was native forest. This is the northern edge of Spencer’s property (Saarahnlee)

The Federal Government can’t take your assets  without paying, but the state governments can

The Native Vegetation Acts were brought in by the states to stop farmers clearing native plants — but no compensation was ever paid to farmers. The Federal Government used the carbon credits contained in that vegetation to meet Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, yet the burden of supplying these credits fell on some farmers and not on other Australians.

The Commonwealth is not allowed to confiscate assets without due compensation — it’s in the Australian Constitution. But states can do it. So what if the Federal Government makes an arrangement with the states for the states to make the confiscatory laws instead — does that get around the Constitution, is that ok?

Carbon credits stored on farms are worth a lot of money

If Australia had emitted more than it was allowed to under the Kyoto Treaty then the Federal Government would supposedly have had to purchase carbon credits from overseas. As it happens Australia did meet its Kyoto obligations — our average emissions during 2008 through 2012 did not exceed 108% of the emissions in 1990 (the base year). In the event, after 2012, the countries that failed to meet their Kyoto obligations did not actually purchase credits, but when the Treaty was signed and when the Native Vegetation Acts were passed it was widely thought that they would have to. Some of the touted carbon credit prices were quite high– the recent Carbon Tax was $24.15 per tonne, for instance — and national emissions are measured in billions of tonnes.

Australia met its Kyoto obligations by stopping land clearing, but otherwise pretty much pursuing business-as-usual. The cost of meeting Australia’s obligations thus fell almost entirely on those farmers who were prevented from land clearing, and it was the Native Vegetation Acts of the states that did the preventing. In the 1990 base year, about 23% of Australia’s emissions were due to land clearing. By stopping land clearing, Australia could emit about 31% (= 8% + 23% ) more in the average year in 2008 to 2012 than in 1990, in all other sectors combined.

The Native Vegetation Act also has the perverse incentive of discouraging farmers from planting native plants. It now makes more sense to plant foreign species. What farmer could afford to let Australian trees grow?

Peter Spencer is doing this on behalf of all property owners in Australia and is determined not to give in

Peter Spencer

The funding ran out mid year,  so he is representing himself. Spencer applied to the judge in October for more time to raise funds and find a lawyer to represent him, but the judge decided that the case was of public importance, had been delayed far too long already and he should go ahead without a lawyer. Spencer feels he has no choice but to make the most of it.

A satellite image of Saarahnlee It is almost all mountainous native bushland. Yellow markers show significant points on his farm.  (Click to enlarge).

Peter Spencer’s fight has been going on for years. Remarkably, he soldiers on, undaunted, long after most men would have given up. Read this ABC interview from 2005 for a little background.

His farm, Saarahnlee, was possibly the highest altitude working farm in Australia, near Adaminaby at 1,500m.  Spencer was involved in research and development toward high altitude projects like Merino breeding programs with CSIRO, trout farming, Korean Ginseng, and forest harvesting of Mountain Gum and Mountain Ash. At the highest point of his property a study on wind farming with a hydro pump system was under development with the ANZ Bank. The aim was to make it profitable without government subsidies. Spencer was pursuing creative and experimental projects related high altitude farming in Australia.

Should Australia be  a country where honest work and personal assets can be randomly destroyed without compensation by the governmentShould a few citizens be forced to bear the costs of the many, or do we share the load fairly?

If we want Australia to be a free and fair land,  we need to do something: to draw the line — and stand up for what we know is right. The creeping power of capricious bureaucrats must be halted.

What kind of country do we want to live in?

He needs our help.

Saarahnlee is just south of the ACT (Click to enlarge).

———————————————————-

More information:

Peter Spencer’s new blog: (add your voice)

Support Peter Spencer on Facebook.

Details of the Federal Court Case in Sydney Please go if you can!

 ———————————————————-

How you can help

1. Help pay the costs

There are three ways to donate. 1: Paypal, 2: Direct Deposit, or 3: Cheque.

1.PayPal — The safer, easier way to pay online.(Paypal accepts credit cards from people without paypal accounts).

2. Direct deposit to: Bank Account Details: National Bank of Australia. Peter Spencer “Tower of Hope” BSB: No. 082335 Account No: 484643925
3. Send a cheque to: PO Box 4297, Pitt Town, NSW, 2756 Australia.

2. Urge the Australian Farmers Fighting Fund to fund legal counsel to represent Spencer

See the sample letter on Peter Spencer’s site or UPDATE: Enough copies of the sample letter have been sent. Please write your own short polite note, adding your name, to urge the AFFF to get back on the Spencer case. So many Farmers stand to benefit if this case is properly tested in the High Court.
Secretary: Sarah McKinnon
02 6269 5666

3. Tell the world — your friends, news editors, twitter and facebook

The more people that know — the better. That includes people, editors, and groups overseas. Australia does not have a big tradition of fighting for individual rights. We need all the help we can get and foreign pressure and advice will make a difference.

All my posts on Peter Spencer

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (99 votes cast)
Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth -- starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!, 9.2 out of 10 based on 99 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n4utvgl

229 comments to Peter Spencer versus The Commonwealth — starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!

  • #
    Lord Jim

    Why is the LIBERAL government even fighting this case.

    280

    • #
      Lord Jim

      And wasn’t Abbott just the other day gloating about how Australia had met the Kyoto Protocol target… by making the farmers bear the cost.

      260

      • #
        the Griss

        Abbott can gloat all he likes.. he is a one term PM …

        .. he may as well have bent over and let the regressives have their way with him !

        Oh wait.. that is exactly what he has done.

        How sad that the Liberals have disenchanted so many people who voted for them.

        Newspoll has it 55-45 to Labor at the moment (iirc)..

        …look for that to climb to 60-40 or even higher by next election.

        Its the Napthine/Balless Victorian thing all over again, unless the Liberals start listening to the people who actually voted for them.

        233

        • #
          FIN

          This might be the first time I’ve ever agreed with you Griss. The Abbott government is the most mendacious in our history and they do it with a casual arrogance that is at times breath taking. Witness yesterdays denial of cuts to the ABC. Even while telling us they are cutting $266m they insist they are not “cuts”. It beggars belief that these people are running our country. But like you I sincerely hope that this peanut is a one term wonder. I suspect it might be given that people didn’t so much vote the LNP in as kick out the dysfunctional Labor party. I don’t have high expectations of Labor either but they simply could not be any worse now that they’ve voided the sociopath Rudd.

          317

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi FIN

            “I don’t have high expectations of Labor either” — Many would agree.

            “but they simply could not be any worse” — Not so many would agree.

            As I have said before, the main difference between Liberal and Labour is that you see the knife coming with the former.

            That at least shows manners.

            But as many have indicated in this blog; in the end they are all slimey and none of them seem to care at all about actually governing for the general good.

            There’s always an angle to give a boost to a mate or donor to your election fund and climb the ladder to success.

            KK

            80

          • #
            the Griss

            Before the election, Hockey said they would “Cut Waste” where they could.

            That gives the Liberals carte blanche to hack the ABC to bits, without going against that promise. !!

            41

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              I am deeply disappointed in politicians but if the Liberals will give the ABC – SBS conglomerate a little shake I will be very happy.

              Listen to some of the crap on government sponsored radio; where do they get these people who seem to be aiming at an audience of 11 to 15 year olds???

              Why do we need fifty different ratio and TV channels from the “public” broadcasters?

              No disparaging of some who post here but I think there is even a designated New Zealand ethnic type channel?

              Sorry but isn’t New Zealand a separate country?

              KK

              90

          • #
            Michael P

            FIN. Maybe you could explain why they should not be cut,as they are in violation of the ABC Charter which requires them to be balanced. Should they be allowed to run roughshod over the laws they signed up to,as they are not balanced,in any sense of the word,over a variety of issues.

            50

            • #
              Lord Jim

              The Liberals should impose cuts based on the ABCs compliance with its charter.

              The fact that it has NO conservative presenters (that I know of) means that it has disenfranchised HALF its audience.

              The penalty for such wanton disregard of the viewing public is obvious: budget cut in half.

              You want to serve half the public… you get half the budget.

              100

    • #
      James Bradley

      Lord Jim,

      Dunno, I just put in.

      I don’t care which government thought of this little scam, but wrong is wrong.

      270

      • #
        JohnM

        Now James, can you tell me where one draws the line between what situations should receive compensation and what shouldn’t?

        What should happen in the reverse situation, i.e. where the value of your property increases because of state government legislation? I’m not sure that the state government gets anything. The tax Office will if it doesn’t involve your own house …

        115

        • #
          James Bradley

          JohnM,

          Stamp duty increases with value as does the interest of the Office of State Revenue.

          One should draw the line where one should reasonably expect fair compensation for actions which cause loss due to the actions of another.

          40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I find it hard to envision why the value of an individual property would increase because of legislation. Legislation is usually applied across the board. If that were not the case, politicians could simply legislate to increase their own capital value. I am sure that would trespass into the realms of corruption.

          21

          • #
            StefanL

            How about when people buy cheap houses in an old inner-suburban industrial area and then agitate for years to get the old factories shut down or moved away. Hey presto, the value of their property doubles overnight. And in some cases the state government subsidises the factory move to a new industrial area.

            30

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Perhaps the “government” should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. They have a lousy track record of doing it. And it destroys the concept of equality under the law.

          50

        • #
          Bobl

          Rates and land tax increases with value in addition to various transfer taxes. The councils are a branch of the state government since councils are not a legitimate standalone government sector under the constitution. This was rejected in a referendum in 1988. In fact local councils are probably illegal even if legislated by the states, since the public said No to local government – loud and clear. It could be argued that the state governments improperly ignored the referendum outcome. Don’t worry, the state governments know how to take a slice of your asset portfolio.

          20

    • #

      Why? It is potentially worth billions.

      Plus a conservative government signed in the Kyoto agreement and some of the state governments involved in the Native Vegetation act would have been conservative ones too.

      302

      • #
        Peter C

        Very good point by Lord Jim. Why is the Liberal Government fighting this case?

        Who do we write to?

        Jo I think that you have email addresses for the Attorney General and other politicians who may be responsible.

        130

        • #
          the Griss

          If the Liberal government doesn’t just say, “sorry its your farm, just look after it”, and get the case dropped…..

          … then its just pouring money down the sink.

          The once-conservative Liberals are the only possible saviour, but are siding with the Green socialist totalitarian devil. !! :-(

          120

      • #
        Originals revue

        Jo- your comment about conservative govts involved seems to once again validate my theory that under the party wrapper there is the same globalist mindset marching forward.

        There is no libs or labor – just globalists……

        240

      • #
        JohnM

        This same argument can be applied to properties who suffer serious devaluation as a result of state or local government policies. I’m thinking particularly of councils who place serious constraints on coastal property and fail to pay any compensation.

        130

        • #

          Yes, I am hearing from many others in related situations. As long as we are divided, they win. If we stand together and say enough is enough on one issue, the other battles get easier.

          If we don’t do something now, how much more will be taken in the next round?

          90

          • #
            Leonard Lane

            Quite a lot can be taken once you let the leftist & greenies (but that is redundant) govern. Work as hard as possible to stop it now our you could wind up like the USA.
            Unfair things are bad. Illegal ones are worse. Enemies, even murders, are far less serious that traitors–it is by traitors leading the something for nothing crowd that great nations fall.

            Obama just gave illegal aliens (he says 5 million, other estimates go to 50 million) amnesty. This is against our Constitution and he should be impeached. But he so many illegal things before, he will not, the Republicans lack patriotism and courage. Moreover, as the word gets out about amnesty 10′s to 100′s of more millions from all over the world will rush for the borders. Now, 5 to 50 million represent about 2-20% or our population with millions and millions more to come. I do not believe our Democratic Republic can stand under such massive invasions from mostly backward people from socialist countries. Work hard to defend your freedoms and be watchful for Kenyans posing as citizens.

            Cicero said it best more than 2000 years ago.
            “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
            he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
            ― Marcus Tullius Cicero, Jan 3, 106 BC – Dec 7, 43 BC

            111

    • #
      Jardine

      It was the Liberal party who sponsored it in the first place – under Howard.

      Great article and everyone should try do their bit and help Spencer. He’s devoted his life to tackling the Australian and NSW governments in this major case, defending private property against governments’ massive theft in breach of the Constitution.

      By the way people, anyone thinking that the Liberals are “the only possible saviour” hasn’t been keeping up with the times.

      Alone of all the political parties in Australia, the Liberal Democratic party is Australia’s only party with policies to:
      1. repeal the Native Vegetation Acts, and
      2. prohibit government officials from using surveillance such as planes or satellites to obtain intelligence or control over private property.

      Check these out. Senator Leyonhjelm on:
      Government’s addiction to OPM: Other People’s Money:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z_PKvUnR-g

      Absurdity of the kinds of tax bills regularly passed by the Senate:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KBMrQjJWao

      Government making household energy more expensive while pretending to care about the poor and ordinary people, and pretending to fine-tune the weather:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOIn8jn4rbw

      If everyone who, in desperation and confusion, voted PUP, had voted LDP with a view to our *liberty*, the LDP would now have the balance of power in the Senate. Think about it.

      Join the LDP and demand Australia’s freedoms back: Liberal Democratic Party: http://www.ldp.org.au

      130

      • #
        JohnM

        Howard was federal government, this lack of compensation is a state government matter.

        14

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          We should name the green menace “Hydra” ( with more than a nod to Captain America movie ) ..it has much power at both sate & dfederal level. Cut one head off another pops up….its core values are the same.

          80

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Howard claimed the credits on the world stage.

          20

      • #
        Bobl

        Not until the LDP sort out their soviet internal structure and become tolerant of differing worldviews and democratic instead of autocratic.

        I read the manifesto…. Stalin would be proud.

        They also need to fix their big government health policy and make it a small government one.

        30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      It was a Liberal/National government that did it! John Howard, Tim Fischer and John Anderson! Lovely blokes, lousy reps!

      At about the same time they also, citing The Law of Supply and Demand, showed that they had not the slightest comprehension of either supply or demand, and bankrupted the entire world trade in wool by forcing producers to slash supply excessively. The trade never recovered, and stands today at a very shaky $2 billion a year when there is no good reason why it should not be up near $20 billion a year.

      90

      • #
        FarmerDoug2

        Sorry Ted but the wool industry had to decrease. The problem became the “snouts in the trough” gobbling up “support” and just usual government interference so the “capitalist forces” couldn’t let the industry find its own level.
        Unfortunately Peters case is similar. If When he gets compensation thousands of us are going to stick our bill in.

        “Potentially worth billions”

        . Sorting out the mess is going to be messy.
        Doug

        31

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Doug, your “capitalist forces” wiped wool out in 1970. It was intelligent government intervention at that time which restored the market to viability, and unintelligent government intervention, especially from 1996 till 2003 which wiped it out again, this time perhaps altogether.

          The hallmark of your unfettered “Free Market” is the boom/bust cycle. The boom/bust cycle serves neither producers nor consumers well.

          11

          • #
            FarmerDoug2

            Ted. I don’t have sheep but I’ve watched my neighbors. You say “wiped out wool in 1970″ but there is less wool now than then. (And I don’t remember the cattle industry being so good then either.) Your “intelligent government intervention” brought in the “..price scheme” that became a rort that was the big factor in the final demise. They were propping up unsaleable wool.
            Unfortunately I see a similar thing here. People like me will feel justified going for whatever we can get and there will be all sorts of dubious claims. But the mess has to be faced. It has been put of to long.
            Doug

            10

          • #
            Throgmorton.

            You are mistaken. The boom bust cycle is the result of the distortion of market signals by intervention.

            00

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      It was a Liberal National government that did it! John Howard, Tim Fischer and John Anderson! Lovely blokes all, but lousy reps!

      At around the same time they, citing The Law of Supply and Demand, demonstrated that they had not the foggiest comprehension of either supply or demand, by forcing wool producers to slash supply by 50%, which bankrupted the entire world trade in wool. The trade never recovered from this extreme supply shock, and stands today at a very shaky $2 billion a year, when there is no good reason why it should not be close to $20 billion a year.

      The Howard government advanced the cause of Marxism in rural Australia more than the Hawke government did, by maintaining the Hawke/Keating policies.

      50

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Sorry there! My connection was playing up, I thought it had failed.

        20

      • #
        gnome

        In the late 1990s the wool industry was trying to work out how to force the government to set up wool quotas to protect existing producers while selling the wool mountain built during the fixed price fiasco.

        Agriculture minister John Kerin had a hard time keeping a straight face dealing with them.

        Were you in the wool industry at the time Ted? You sound like them, but you don’t seem to have leaned the lessons of that period.

        30

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Lots of people looked for lots of solutions, many of them pathetic. I don’t remember that one. I do know that on every occasion when I challenged the management of wool subsequent events proved me right and the management wrong.

          The relevance of all this is that busting farmers/woolgrowers/small business capitalists is Greens/Marxist policy. But in the case of wool the supposedly “conservative” Howard government did the greatest damage. It’s all in the education, the same education which promotes the AGW scam, and for the same purpose.

          20

        • #
          FarmerDoug2

          OK Ted, What should have been done? I’m assuming this thread has gotten old enough to go OT.
          For my part I feel the original price support scheme was OK, it helped with the “boom – bust” thing, but they got to greedy. How to keep people from getting hooked on “support” is the question.
          Doug

          10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Just because they can would be as accurate an answer as any. What government will willingly lose and thereby admit guilt?

      40

      • #
        panzerJ

        The crux of the matter…no govt will willingly give up power of any description,it’s in their DNA to control at all levels that’s why we had those foolish “put the shires/councils in the constitution” referendum.
        Govts will fight tooth and nail even when they know they are wrong,this is nothing new.

        40

    • #
      handjive

      Why does the Abbott Government wipe the Flannery Climate Commission off the internet with in days of election, but …

      continues a political vendetta of harassment of individual citizens who dare to question their questionable climate science?

      Responses to Professor Ian Plimer’s 101 climate questions

      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer

      Despicable, Mr Abbott.

      50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Well yes, and at risk of repeating myself too many times, by now it should be very obvious that the core green agenda continues regredless of which “party’ is in power.

        All are “Hydra”…….( with nod to Cptn America movie )

        Applying logic we would have to conclude that each party is purely a logical wrapper around a group of people who are the same whether “labor” or “liberal”.
        If you watch what they do and ignore what they sday, what they do exposes who they truly are.

        The other uncomfortable reality is that your vote is meaningless – by way of repeatable result in the last 4 federal elections, it matters not who you vote for you get the same result.

        Now cue everyone backing politely away in denial from the bloke who dares speak the uncomfotable truth….

        60

        • #
          FIN

          Well to be fair Handjive, Abbott is a full blown climate change denier/devout believer in sky fairies but is rapidly becoming neutered by the realities of the wider world. A world which is slowly realising we have a serious problem that needs urgent responses. China knows, India knows, Europe knows, the US knows and of course many smaller players as well. I don’t want to go too early on this but we are getting a real sense now that climate change denial has “jumped the shark”. The absolute dismal failure of the faux-skeptics mob to produce any countering science will leave them very vulnerable. Blind Freddy can see where this is going, you’d have to be extremely obtuse to miss it.

          118

          • #
            Robert

            You certainly are delusional I’ll give you that.

            Neither China nor India are going to cripple their economic growth over this nonsense. That you believe they are speaks more how obtuse you are than words can express.

            150

          • #
            Robert

            BTW:

            I don’t want to go too early on this but we are getting a real sense now that climate change denial has “jumped the shark”. The absolute dismal failure of the faux-skeptics mob to produce any countering science will leave them very vulnerable.

            Engaging in projection I see. Where is your science? Haven’t seen any. Your key players would rather go to court to prevent releasing their data which isn’t very scientific.

            We skeptics are doing just fine thank you, which is so aptly demonstrated by the fact that trolls like you have to drop in and post your nonsense as though it will change that fact.

            Nature just doesn’t seem to care much for alarmist opinions.

            120

          • #
            the Griss

            There is no science from the socialist alarmist.

            Only a failed hypothesis, and a disgusting political agenda.

            This was NEVER about the climate, that is just the Trojan they are using to forward their control agenda.

            And very stupid people like you, have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

            Do you really think you will be one of this unelected bureaucrats that are trying to control everyone.?

            NO.. you are one of the brain-washed, non-thinking fools sucked in by this enormous scam !!

            70

          • #

            FIN, face it, everyone here knows you pop in with inflammatory grandiose statements based on your own fantasy wish-list. No one is buying.

            But thanks for turning up to show that I’ll publish opinions of those who disagree.

            If you could only find a friend who could turn up the mystery paper with evidence that I’ve been asking for since January 2010, then I could publish them instead and turf you off for lacking any substantial argument.

            Is there any evidence? Jan 2010.
            Our evidence (which you seem to be in denial of).

            121

            • #
              FIN

              I rest my case Jo, I said scientific evidence not some bloggers ideologically driven opinion. This is not about your opinion Jo it is about your science, you haven’t produced any which I take to mean you don’t have any.

              212

              • #
                the Griss

                There is ZERO real scientific evidence to back the claim of CO2 driven global warming, only failed models and agenda driven media claptrap.

                Please produce something if you think there is any worthwhile REAL science to back this fakery.

                As you say, your “opinion and belief” (based on ZERO facts), is ideologically driven. It certainly has NO scientific basis.

                You have never produced one tiny bit of science to back your religion.. because THERE ISN’T ANY !!!

                72

              • #
                Robert

                Well, once again where is YOUR science? Haven’t produced any because you don’t have any? Just your opinion eh? Based on how you deliver your opinion vs how Jo delivers her “opinion” I know which one I’d consider, and it isn’t yours.

                Something to think about, not that you will, and not that you’d get it if you did.

                50

              • #
                the Griss

                “I rest my case”

                You have NO CASE.. just empty rhetoric and ranting.

                What you have been doing is resting your brain.. for the last 18 or so years !!

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                And if you do want another explanation for the very slight warming in the latter quarter of last century..

                “Stjern et al. (2009) found a total change

                in the mean surface solar radiation trend over 11 stations

                in northern Europe of +4.4% between 1983 and 2003.”

                ————————–

                Its the SUN.. !!!

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                And here’s some more stuff you should read, and comprehend (if your brain-wash miasma will let you).

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                And another..

                All linked to THE SUN !!!

                Now how about you produce something other than your feeble religious rantings.. or [Snip] !!

                30

              • #
                Bobl

                Rubbish Fin, Jo publishes plenty of science even an alternate hypothesis worked out by her husband[notch delay hypothesis]. I publish my calculations that show anything above about 1 degree per doubling is mathematically impossible. I post math that says the west antarctic melting CANNOT be due to global warming [insufficient energy]. What do you post, rantings with no substance, pretty clear to me that you can’t [or wont] even use a calculator.

                Until you are prepared to check things for yourself you will not know the truth.

                Jo’s audience is full of university graduates who can handle the science much better than you.

                40

          • #
            the Griss

            And what need is there for any counter hypothesis, when the climate is behaving exactly has it always has.

            The current climate is WELL WITHIN HISTORIC VARIABILITY, probably about half way between the LIA and the MWP.

            There is NO NEED for any explanation. !

            52

          • #
            Michael P

            Maybe you could explain how you come to the conclusion that “china Knows” and intend to take action,as the Chinese show no signs,of decreasing it’s current CO2 output. The so-called agreement with the U.S is not binding on them in any way and has no chance of becoming law.

            50

      • #
        cohenite

        I don’t think Abbott personally gave those [despicable] answers to Plimer. They were after all, put up by Gillard.

        I’m sure Abbott’s government is still winding its way past the booby traps left by the last mob.

        Still, it is annoying how prominent sceptics like Plimer and Carter are treated by the alarmist monolith.

        00

    • #
      Tom O

      Welcome to the United States and its line of logic. In truth, it seems in every country these days it is the hard working middle class worker that shoulders the burdens, but also realize, the burdens he shoulders aren’t laid on him by the poor, but by the rich. The poor carry their own yoke.

      80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It seems to be an old problem.

        Matthew
        23:4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 23:5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 23:6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 23:7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

        40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Yes they are otherwise known as parasites….or Pharasees…..they made laws then sponged off peoples misery.

          “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

          50

        • #
          Michael P

          It allso says in Luke 20:46 45And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples, 46″Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, 47who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”

          30

    • #
      Jock Strap

      Because it would set a legal precedent if Spencer won. That would expose future governments to massive future compensation bills.

      21

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      It shouldn’t need to be fought at all. State grabbermints were in the wrong the whole time. From the Commonwealth Constitution, Section 109:

      109 Inconsistency of laws
      When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the
      Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the
      extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

      That says it all. Commonwealth law always prevails over State.

      Further, Commonwealth and State Constitutions can only be amended by referendum. If State grabbermints amended their respective Constitutions sans referendum, then that change has no lawful binding effect and is utterly void and penalties for such must follow.

      They had no lawful – even legal – right to do this. The States better be prepared for reparations.

      70

  • #
    Peter C

    There are some very important Principles at issue here:
    the right of the individual to make decisions about his/her own welfare,
    property rights,
    a fair go
    failure of compensation for unfair or central decisions

    vs

    central control of society,
    beaucratic interference,
    socalism,

    I hope Peter wins. It may define our rights and the type of democracy that we live in for the foreseeable future.

    170

    • #
      panzerJ

      Democracy is an interesting concept,it would be good if we could have one.
      Democracy is really nothing more than mob rule,once the rich realised that this was the way things were they soon took control and gave the hoi polloi a democracy that could be controlled by the rich,but that is the way of the world it pretty well always has been that way.
      I am fortunate that I have a testimony the there is a God in heaven and that His Son Jesus is the Christ and that there will be something better soon coming.

      21

      • #
        Mark D.

        PanzerJ, what do you stand on? Mob rule is democracy but spun in a very crafty negative slant. Slam the rich (sometimes they deserve it) but do you want destitute friends or successful friends? Lets shift that to; starving friends or friends with enough to eat?

        Yes I get that governments are F’d up but you propose no solution on Earth

        Chicken!

        30

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Some video work done to highlight this case and Jo Nova’s tireless campaign. What does the Kyoto Protocol have to do with Prop…: http://youtu.be/Fud423If1nQ

    81

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I am reminded of newspaper reports in South Africa many years ago, when a company mining mineral sands (ilmenite, rutile and zircon) on the country’s east coast, invited a bunch of typically poorly informed greenies to visit its facilities.

    The greenies were taken up to look at how the land was reclaimed after mining. The greenies were duly horrified at what they saw. The difference between the unmined and reclaimed landscape were stark and obvious. The greenies threw a fit at what they saw, saying this is typical of what mining companies do in damaging the environment.

    However, in typical greenie fashion they got it completely wrong, they were bitching about the appearance of the unmined material, which looked like a wasteland, when compared to the reclaimed material, which had been replanted with indigenous plants, shrubs and trees.

    The moral in this story is that the greenies rarely get it right and usually the pragmatists, such as most of us (trolls excepted) end up paying for their green stupidity. The accompanying photo of natural vegetation appears to me something which could be dramatically improved upon by the actions of man.

    For Peter Spencer to receive no compensation for politically motivated green nonsense is clearly a serious wrong, which must be righted. Common sense must prevail over green lunacy, or we will all will suffer, and suffer very seriously.

    241

    • #
      Dave

      Peter

      Very similar story to Green Movement representatives on Fraser Island when they were logging

      Green
      “This pristine forest should NEVER be logged, it’s magnificent”

      Logger
      “But it was, 22 years ago”

      70

  • #
    Scott L

    Very similar to when the Victorian Labor government legislated green wedges in 2003.

    Reduced the value of properties by around 50% overnight (that’s if you could get anyone to buy it) and severely restricted what you could do with your land to earn income despite many of the properties no longer large enough to support Agriculture.

    Zero compensation – 100% hardship

    one green wedge is located in suburbia where population infrastructure already exists, instead they tear up virgin land on the outskirts of the city and call that being environmentally astute.

    Many of the landholders have been in the area prior to the 1940′s.

    120

    • #

      Our State Constitutions should have recognition that property holders need compensation for forced government acquisitions. The loophole should be closed.

      320

      • #
        Lord Jim

        There are some common law protections against the abrogation of fundamental legal rights, JJ Spigelman has written a series of articles on it, including this one:

        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800423

        40

        • #
          James Bradley

          Lord Jim,

          There are common law protections against a lot of things.

          Governments by and large breach common law to achieve and end because they have the legal and finacial resources to fight the little people indefinitely.

          Law is not about justice…

          50

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Well, common law is superior to statute, but a statute is interpreted according to the objective intention of the parliament. Implied within that objective intention are fundamental rights. These rights are a part of the general or common law context into which a statute is promulgated. Where a statute is ambiguous the intention can therefore restrict the application of the literal meaning of a statute (what Coke calls particular intention but is today called a limited domain of application); even where a statute is not strictly ambiguous (that is, where the literal meaning is not ambiguous, but a result could not have been intended by the legislature) the common law can, because it forms a part of the legislative context, act a restraint on statute (e.g. Cox v Hakes; or the cases of natural justice, etc.).

            10

            • #
              Lord Jim

              Ooops bad typo, normally I don’t bother to correct, but have to here:

              Well, statute is superior to common law, but a statute is interpreted according to the objective intention of the parliament. Implied within that objective intention are fundamental rights. These rights are a part of the general or common law context into which a statute is promulgated. Where a statute is ambiguous the intention can therefore restrict the application of the literal meaning of a statute (what Coke calls particular intention but is today called a limited domain of application); even where a statute is not strictly ambiguous (that is, where the literal meaning is not ambiguous, but a result could not have been intended by the legislature) the common law can, because it forms a part of the legislative context, act a restraint on statute (e.g. Cox v Hakes; or the cases of natural justice, etc.).

              20

      • #
        Richo

        Hi Jo

        I believe that Federal and Local Governments may have a case to answer but the Federal Government is ultimately responsible because their legislation overarches the State Government legislation. Refer to the following from the DEPI website:

        Roles and responsibilities

        The management of biodiversity on farms is a shared responsibility between all three levels of government (Australian, State and Local) and land owners.

        The Australian Government administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which ensures the protection of Australia’s unique biodiversity at a national level.

        The Victorian Government administers a comprehensive legislative framework that addresses natural resource and environment management, conservation and sustainable utilisation. The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the Wildlife Act 1975 – administered by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) – are the primary Acts dealing with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of native flora and fauna.

        Under the Environment Protection Act 1970, it is an offence to cause land, air, water or noise pollution. The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) administers this legislation in co-operation with local Councils.

        The EPA has established audit protocols for river health including environmental flows and biological indicators of stream and river health. The EPA works in partnership with DSE, the Department of Primary Industry, Catchment Management Authorities and other stakeholders to facilitate the adoption of clean agricultural practices which provide both environmental and economic benefits. Victoria’s native vegetation is protected by law, and various offences apply to actions concerning native plants. It is sensible for land owners to check with your local Council and DSE (call 136 186) before starting any work that could affect native vegetation.

        30

        • #
          Olaf Koenders

          That DEPI website blurb is misleading. There is no 3rd tier of grabbermint recognised under the Commonwealth Constitution. Only Federal and State are recognised. Local grabbermint is actually State.

          They’re trying to force-feed us their tripe that local councils are Constitutionally recognised, something Labor and Juliar Dullard were trying desperately to achieve in a deliberate misleadingly titled referendum question.

          20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Our State Constitutions should have recognition that property holders need compensation for forced government acquisitions. The loophole should be closed.

        Jo,

        I would add that there should be limits placed on the reasons for which property can be taken by government. If it’s not an important public benefit like needed roads, water supply, and similar things then government should be made to respect private property rights. Why would any citizenry want its property confiscated by or because of an international treaty? That’s the most important issue I’ve seen in all of Peter Spencer’s trouble since you started chronicling it on this blog. I would not dream of sitting here in the U.S. and try to dictate confiscation with or without compensation or even encouraging it, in Australia or anywhere else. Neither would anyone in Australia want to do it to me. At least no one I would be able to respect.

        The right to control the use of your property is fundamental to being a free society. We fought a war to gain that right. The courts have whittled away at that provision of the U.S. Constitution ever since. Peter’s fight is everyone’s fight.

        80

        • #
          Spotted Reptile

          The problem, Roy, is who defines what is ‘an important public benefit.’ Right now the Globalists are in charge of the language.

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I agree that a rigorous definition would be problematical. But without something concrete you have the City of New London in Connecticut condemning homes by eminent domain and simply giving the property to a developer who is now happily building a large shopping mall. The city’s motive? They need a better tax base, hence the need for higher priced real estate. Our Constitution permits taking only for public purpose and only with just compensation. The Supreme Court upheld this monstrosity as being within the definition of “public purpose”. But I think you’ll agree that it was not.

            We need for our governments to have certain powers so they can do their job. But the trouble with government power is that the dishonest will always misuse it.

            I certainly didn’t need to tell anyone that fact. But Constitutions and laws need to be specific about things like this or you get New London and Peter Spencer where those with more power simply eat those with less power for lunch.

            And the people need to be paying attention to what happens to others, lest the same thing happen to them.

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              A simple prohibition against transferring property taken by eminent domain into the hands of any private citizen, company or corporation could have easily prevented New London’s problem.

              20

      • #
        ianl8888

        The States in Aus have no written Constitution, only past practice and custom

        No referendum on this would be permitted, or if allowed be so complex and convoluted that a NO vote would be guaranteed

        Mining leases, even when held over freehold land that the miner actually owns and in NSW paid for, are held only at the “pleasure of the (State) Minister”

        The lack of written State Constitutions is the reason that Peter Spencer has to involve the Federal Govt to have any chance of success

        30

      • #
        panzerJ

        This is never going to happen Jo because the reason is that it would have brought an avalanche of Aboriginal land claims and compensation for all Australian lands taken/stolen etc.
        Govts are very good at covering future eventualities(govts have been and are tools of the rich )

        10

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Even then, you need leaders who will abide by the Constitution. America has it enshrined in its constitution, yet it also has leaders that ignore the Constitution on a regular basis.

        If those charged with upholding the document are themselves the problem, then the document becomes superfluous.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Phil,

          I suspect you saw the president’s little 15 minutes of lies and distortions last night. I doubt that very many in America realize what’s actually happening. Certainly not even the people at Fox News, who have given this issue a lot of air time, realize it.

          Here’s what’s really going on. The president was rendered irrelevant by the election on November 4th. He’s now got a problem if he wants to continue his agenda. So he has to regain relevance and thinks this amnesty ploy will give it to him again — that’s his thinking. So he reverses course from years of denying that he has the power to do what he just did. It’s right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals: Stay relevant. Otherwise you lose the power to lead where you want people to go. Never get too far out in front of where the people will follow lest they stop following. So do it incrementally, not all at once. That this also gives him talking points against Republicans or strengthens those he already has, is an added benefit.

          This has been going on with Obama for his entire term as president. And not a single person seems to recognize it except Glenn Beck, who laid it all out years ago. But there’s more to come on this illegal immigration thing. You watch and see. Obama doesn’t give a flying fig about anyone’s legal status. It’s just a ploy to keep power with a base he hopes will be able to vote someday and will keep his party in power. He promised, among other things to strengthen border enforcement again. But I think I can easily promise you that it won’t happen. Only the part of his little plan that he really wants is ever going to become reality — keeping his political base happy enough to follow his next step.

          This is a man bent on subverting this country and he’s the most dangerous president we have ever had. Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon together never did as much harm as Obama has done. And he’s far from finished messing with the Constitution and the rule of law.

          50

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            I noticed that the great orator was struggling for his words while referring to Australia and AGW.

            10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Roy, fortunately I did not see it. I was watching a VCU Rams game, and then switched to watch my Raiders win their first game of the year! (Can we start the season now?)

            But your insight is something I had not thought of, and so far, nothing I have read suggests it. Yet it is so clear and simple that everyone should know it! (well, at least for us slow ones, after having it pointed out).

            Excellent point! I wish I could give you more than just one green thumb.

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Phil,

              What you watched instead was probably far more useful than Obama’s lecture on why he was doing what he did. It was nauseating to watch.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Phil,

                I got onto his plan when I read Dinesh D’Sousa’s book, THE ROOTS OF OBAMA’S RAGE. As I read his argument for his case I realized that what I was watching Obama do was exactly what D’Sousa was describing. I had long been listening to Glenn Beck’s radio show during my morning drive to work (nearly 45 minutes) and the whole thing began to make sense after reading D’Sousa.

                Obama has brought a personal agenda to his presidency. One that he dare not reveal publicly. We might be even worse off now if not for the man’s narcissism and general incompetence as a leader getting in his way. But he’s fighting his dead father’s fight in Kenya for freedom from colonial oppression and he see’s the United States as an oppressor of people both inside the country and around the world. That’s his only agenda as president — he certainly isn’t paying attention to his constitutional duties or his oath of office.

                You can probably find the book on Amazon. I’ve loaned my copy to someone and can’t give you the ISBN number but the title should suffice. It’s well worth the read.

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Roy – D’Sousa is on my list. I take books like that with a grain of salt, but when he nails it time after time, I have to give him his due. That is why Obama is trying to shut him down.

                00

    • #
      markx

      Green zones/green wedges…. The simplest property scam going.

      Government takes desirable close to city land off the table, (usually by preventing subdivision, forcing owners to just sit on it), forcing buyers out further to land which looked like it was decades away from development, but which had, amazingly and conveniently, been recently bought up cheaply by developers.

      Developers make a far greater profit, pollies get political donations (not to mention the odd wad of cash).

      Later the green zone is needed for housing and is rezoned, subdivided and sold off as such. By that time the original owners have passed on or have given up or sell up to convieniently pre-informed developers.

      100

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        You should try the U.S. Endangered Species Act for size. Federal law can literally deprive you of the use of your property with no recourse and there are no standards by which you can tell in advance whether what you plan to do will be approved or not. It’s application is completely capricious and arbitrary — left to the judgment of some mid level functionary whose decision may rest more on whether or not he got laid the night before than on objective criteria.

        20

    • #
      Bryl

      Exact same has happened to me. Acreage property bought with intention of funding my retirement. Perfect position for development. Ex farm land so very little original vegetation. Council placed it in a “green belt”.(and other properties around me). Value of property dropped. At same time they are allowing development further out where there are no serices, schools, transport, etc and clearing virgin bush.

      91

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I’ve no doubt that you’re as angry about it as I would be. Is there any hope for reversing the council’s decision?

        00

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Very unimpressed with Abbott.Sucking up to Hollande on climate change.WTF! Capricious and weak- and very vulnerable politically.His folding on the repeal of 18c was galling and piss-poor.Griss says one term;I agree.

    71

    • #
      the Griss

      It will be a MASSIVE landslide to “anyone else” at the next elections.

      Liberal voters are turning away in DROVES.

      They WILL NOT vote for a continuance of this current non-Liberal government. !!

      51

      • #
        the Griss

        I hate to say it, but even Bill Shorten is less wishy washy that Abbott and the Liberals at this point !!!!

        314

        • #
          the Griss

          red thumbers..

          Do you really disagree ??

          Say so.. don’t hide !!

          51

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Didn’t, but I might.

            Is your memory really that short?

            40

            • #
              Lord Jim

              Didn’t, but I might.

              Is your memory really that short?

              Abbott is now parroting the global warming meme, praising the ‘green energy fund’ that he promised to repeal, and pushing for a ‘binding’ agreement at much ado about nothing climate conference in Paris next year.

              Abbott has not cut the unaffordable programs promised (but not funded) by the ALP.

              Abbot waved through a pay rise for politicians but squelched on a pay rise for the armed forces (isn’t it the ALP that hates the military?).

              Abbot has let through a trade deal that was kept secret from the public. Democracy, hello?

              Pretty much the /only/ thing the Liberals are doing right at the moment is not embarking on ridiculous new spending programs.

              If the ALP tightens their spending, drops their ridiculous obsession with an ETS and open borders, what real difference is there? Both the ALP and Libs govern with a reckless indifference to the rights of the citizen (exhibit A, Peter Spencer): excluding the privileged political class, of course.

              130

              • #
                the Griss

                “Pretty much the /only/ thing the Liberals are doing right at the moment is not embarking on ridiculous new spending programs.”

                Only because the senate is blocking them !!

                20

              • #
                Lord Jim

                the Griss
                November 21, 2014 at 7:12 am

                “Pretty much the /only/ thing the Liberals are doing right at the moment is not embarking on ridiculous new spending programs.”

                Only because the senate is blocking them !!

                Right you are.

                I also forgot about the 2.5 billion direct action plan that the senate decided to pass (interestingly ‘pass’ is also euphemism for a toilet motion).

                30

              • #
                Spotted Reptile

                He’s panicking because his numbers are going south, so he thinks he can get more votes by sucking up to the Left. Typical lily-livered so-called conservative. The Left will NEVER vote for Abbott. Instead, how about doing what you were voted in for by your base, Tony? They’re the people deserting you.

                80

              • #
                Ted O'Brien.

                Jim, your memory really is that short!

                00

            • #
              the Griss

              No.. Abbott and co keep reminding me!

              I’m not seeing a lot of difference.

              And THAT’S the problem !!

              40

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              Saturday morning I did. But I greened #6.1.1.1.2 to compensate.

              I too am very disappointed. Since Al Gore’s visit Abbott has had to pussyfoot around Clive Palmer. The delay is costing us a fortune, and making really big bikkies for Al Gore.

              10

          • #
            Richo

            Hi Griss

            I’m not a red thumber but you must be taking in too much ABC and Fairfax. It’s bad for your blood pressure.

            30

          • #
            Chesterdude

            Yay, Griss,

            Bill Shorten is the man, he and Labor, and the Greens have blocked all that nasty budget cutting that awful Tony Abbott wanted to push through the senate.

            You know all those Labor/Green schemes that resulted in the deaths of 4 apprentices and about 1,200 illegal refugees.

            The schemes that pushed our budget from $20 Billion surplus to $360 Billion deficit in 6 short years.

            You must have read about it, Griss, that’s the deficit that is now costing us tax payers $1 Billion per month just to service.

            I agree, give Bill Shorten a go. Even if he didn’t know what what being proposed he knew that he should support it.

            Like really, what else could you do with an extra $1 billion a month?

            Schools, hospitals, infrastructure, dams, hydro…. noooooo that stuff just improves quality of life.

            Lets go with Bill Shorten – illegal refugees on tax payer funded medical sabaticals, more home insulation schemes, and wow, lets try to re-introduce cash-for-clunkers… might be enough even to afford to buy a 2007 Rudd or a 2012 Gillard.

            Give yourself a forehead slap, Griss, and have breakfast, you know you get grumpy without breakfast.

            If I’m not mistaken there’s a bigger game afoot here, and we all need bunker down for a while.

            80

          • #
            Annie

            I didn’t red thumb you the Griss but I cannot stand Shorten’s perpetual whinging frown.

            60

        • #
          panzerJ

          Shorten isn’t in govt,he doesn’t have to make any decisions ,he doesn’t have to face a volatile senate plus he has a very biased MSM(in his favour).

          40

        • #
          Angry

          ELECTRICITY bill shorten….
          ha ha ha!
          Vote for the alp (Australian LIARS PARTY) and get back the carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) TAX and boats full of illegal immigrants arriving every week.
          You have got to be joking!

          41

    • #
      Tim

      Who knows what carrots and sticks can be applied to country that won’t toe the global carbon line? Abbott has sold us out instead of standing by his principles – but what threats were made and what dollars promised behind closed doors? They haven’t been planning this for 30 years to be tripped up by an impudent Oz pollie.

      60

  • #

    Now that Palmer has destroyed himself by associating with Al Gore, Peter Spencer would make a fine independant to replace him.
    It seems fairly obvious that it was the previous federal government that did this to him. Who could have any faith in our legal system at all if they get away with it?

    130

  • #
    Glen Michel

    Sorry about the O/t rant.I sympathise with Spencer- this has been going on got some time and I guess he needs the issue to be resolve in his favour.Soon! Poor fellow has been trying to do the right thing.He is hardly the rapacious type.

    60

  • #
    mem

    Hi Jo, Important. Can you check Peter Spencer’s BSB number as I went to put a contribution in to help and my online bank said the BSB you have posted was incorrect?
    Thanks,
    Mem

    10

  • #
    pat

    what a disgrace. will do what i can…

    naturally, Peter’s story and court case does not appear to have had ANY COVERAGE WHATSOEVER in the MSM.

    and while our MSM gorged on Obamania & CAGW to the exclusion of everything else at the G20 Economic Summit – e.g. i heard a caller on one of local abc’s interminable late-nite quizzes say she wanted to answer Francoise Hollande to a G20 question, but he wasn’t there, so she couldn’t! – the minor(?) matter of bank BAIL-INS was on the menu (of particular interest to those with more than govt-guaranteed $250,000 in bank desposits). only AFR appears to have even mentioned it:

    17 Nov: Australian Financial Review: Small step for G20, a leap for TBTF banks
    With global leaders disappearing as fast as they arrived at the G20 Summit in Brisbane, TBTF (Too Big To Fail) – one of the key issues for financial markets – got the rubber stamp of approval.
    Mark Carney, Bank of England governor and chairman of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) presented the findings of the FSB’s earlier release on “Adequacy of loss-absorbing capacity of global systemically important banks in resolution”.
    The document examined a new requirement for total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) and is an admirable attempt to prevent government or taxpayers’ money bailing out banks again.
    While not the Holy Grail, it is a huge step in the right direction. It does not prevent banks from failing but it should put a healthy level of capital buffers in the way of government-funded bailouts…
    Attention big four
    Although no Australian bank has been classified as one of the 30 G-SIFIs, given the proximity of the Murray report, you can guarantee the domestic majors will be watching closely.
    On another note, there are some potential unintended consequences. According to Zero Hedge, independent analyst Russell Napier declared Sunday November 26, 2014, as the day money died.
    The G20 confirmed that uninsured bank deposits are just part of commercial banks’ capital structure, and also that they are far from the most senior portion of that structure.
    This leads to the logical conclusion that following a bank failure, a bank deposit is no longer money in the way a banknote is.
    As Zero Hedge noted: “Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any ‘failing’ institution. In our last financial crisis, deposits were de facto guaranteed by the state, but from November 16 holders of large-scale deposits will be, both de facto and de jure, just another creditor squabbling over their share of the assets of a failed bank.”
    Indeed we saw this situation arise in Cyprus, but it now appears that this will be enshrined in the regulatory framework.
    The solution is to either spread your deposits as far as necessary so that they remain under the government deposit guarantee or just stuff your cash under the mattress.
    In summary, this FSB proposal that has been endorsed by the G20 cannot totally prevent banks from failing in the first place and there are still some grumbles about going-concern versus gone-concern capital, it is nevertheless a huge leap towards protecting taxpayers from funding another recapitalisation of the financial system.
    In addition, when the new rules are formally adapted there may be some unintended consequences but hopefully in the end bank investors will be left with a blueprint of how a failed bank will be liquidated…
    http://www.afr.com/p/markets/small_step_for_leap_for_tbtf_banks_ZLrMJCNOG4jNty1KOD9KRP

    30

  • #

    This in my opinion is nothing short of legally sanctioned theft. If we don’t speak up for Spencer, and try to help him, who will speak up for us, when its out turn to have our property stolen or ruined at the whim of a politician’s ego?

    190

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The government take 30% of my wage every week, plus 10% of everything I spend the rest on, at the threat of imprisonment.

      I personally don’t see a difference. Thieves and lairs the lot of them.

      30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Just ‘put in”.

    When politicians can do this to people it is a total screwup. that needs urgent action.

    as The Griss says: there ain’t NO action!

    KK

    50

  • #
    Kel Graham

    The so-called ‘Conservatives’ have and will do everything in their power to protect their God (Howard),the man who betrayed the very concept of liberty, freedom and fairness and the Socialist Left will certainly not speak out against this blatant theft of private property.

    50

  • #

    I wish GI were here to warn against this so that I don’t cop the flack. Legally scientifically etc run the other way

    410

  • #
    Richo

    The native vegetation legislation introduced by State Governments and the Commonwealth Government is effectively compulsory acquisition without compensation for farmers who purchased their property prior to the introduction of this legislation. Its about time these governments compensated these farmers for the preservation of native vegetation and fauna on behalf of the community. Why should these farmers be screwed over financially for the big green blob.

    100

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Because Marxists believe that there should be no private ownership of land or industry, and Marxists have just about gained full control. And there are plenty of Marxists in our courts, too.

      80

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Jo, As soon as I saw the mapped location of this property I became suspicious. Has has anyone considered that the ultimate goal to squeeze Spencer out so that his land can be added to the park?

    100

    • #

      Hi Mark,
      I think I know what you mean by squeezing Peter out of his land so that it can be added to the Namadji National Park or even the Gudgenby Nature Reserve. However, both those parks are in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) – a separate state.
      Peter’s property is within NSW (New South Wales). So, the ACT government cannot purchase or reclaim Peter’s property.

      30

      • #
        Mark D.

        Thanks for the information MaxL. I am painfully unaware of the AU use of “national” as in “National Park”. In the USA that would be US government control as apposed to State control. We have both State parks and National parks.

        I don’t know if it is material to my comment (and suspicion) though. I see no reason why savvy NSW parties couldn’t or wouldn’t be interested in an adjoining park.

        Especially true when you consider the “Wildlands” protections outlined in Agenda 21. See: http://resistagenda21.com/agenda-21/15-2/

        I know this information is specific to USA but I’m under the impression that it is being pushed worldwide. Neither do I need to know that any government has no lawful right to reclaim or purchase Peter’s property. The whole point is that they are obtaining it WITHOUT compensation and can apparently do so without authorization BECAUSE it isn’t costing taxpayers.

        This kind of thing has been going on in the US for quite a while. A simple example: EPA says wetlands can’t be modified for any reason therefore land owner lets wetlands property go tax forfeit, State reclaims tax forfeited lands and never puts them up for sale back to private owners. There are many similar restricted uses that devalue property and ultimately the State repossesses the land without spending a cent.

        The conspiracy worsens when groups like the Nature Conservancy buy, sell and trade blocks of land back to governments with specific restrictions (covenants) on future use. It’s been going on for years and many people do not have a clue about it. An actual example I’m familiar with was a privately owned island which the owner wanted to subdivide and put expensive housing on. He was obstructed in every direction by Green politics until finally the Nature Conservancy brokered a deal between the US federal, Wisconsin and Minnesota State governments. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/federalaid/cloughisland/

        One could argue that this particular property is best left undeveloped but what about the loss of property tax dollars that the remaining property owners have to make up? Who protects the owner when he/she seeks to gain the appropriate value of his/her property?

        Property ownership and rights protecting ownership are the foundation of freedom. We must fight vigorously to keep them. The Left knows this and has been working tirelessly to weaken that foundation.

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It appears that Agenda-21 is now part of international treaty agreements. Unless we have a government with the spine to unilaterally withdraw or a Supreme Court with the wisdom to figure out that not even a treaty agreement can trump the Constitution, we’re in for quite a fight.

          70

    • #

      Spencer’s property did abut the Namadji National Park. But he was an accidental victim of a much much bigger goal.

      Meeting our Kyoto obligations threatened to cost either billions in carbon credits or real pain (and billions) in cutting carbon emissions in a nation whose major export industry is coal and which transports everything long distance. We have little access to hydro, no political will to use nuclear power, and lots of coal and gas. The very very cheap option was to force random farmers (the ones who had planted or allowed native regrowth) to cover the cost for the rest of the nation.

      130

      • #
        Mark D.

        Jo, please note my comment to MaxL above and consider that these people wouldn’t mind BOTH the cost savings due to Kyoto as well as expansion of UN-private property.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Mark,

          What cost savings due to Kyoto? It was intended to be a crushing cost to anyone who got sucked into it. Fortunately George Bush didn’t go along.

          40

          • #
            Mark D.

            Roy, the cost “savings” at play in AU is because of the self induced punishment- AU signed on to Kyoto, this “savings” is via AU avoiding fines for not meeting goals.

            If I understand it correctly, had the world signed on to Kyoto, AU would not just avoid fines but be in a position to profit from sequestered carbon and other countries would pay them (never mind middle-skimming along the way).

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Mark,

              Looks like I misunderstood what you said.

              The unfortunate thing in all of this is that there never was a problem to worry about. So any cost or profit will always be based on the global warming scam, just money representing nothing but hot air.

              10

    • #
      gnome

      The National Parks in this area, including Namadgi, KSP, Alpine National Park Victoria were all established because it is worthless country.

      Peter Spencer had no hope of making a living from land in the Shannon’s Flat area, it is god-forsaken pauciflora snowgum country in a rainshadow area which will take centuries to recover if it is ever cleared. Since the adjoining snow leases were cancelled in the 1960s all the properties in that area have been nothing but hobby farms for decrepit farmers. Even a bushranger would starve out there.

      Look at the trees in the picture above FFS- you’d be hard pushed to cut a garden stake out of each one.

      It is nowhere near good enough to grow mountain ash, and if he wanted to breed a few trout that would have been quite OK without needing to clear the land.

      I sympathise with his plight, but only in the same way as I sympathise with anyone who would try to make a living in that area.

      50

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    I haven’t followed Peter Spencer’s problems for some time now but does anyone know who finally ended up with the property?

    30

  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    Australian Government Rebukes Obama

    ” Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop criticises US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef. It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president. ”

    You’d think the supposed Leader of the free World would have had more substantive issues to fill his time and be taking up everyone else’s with.

    Go Julie !

    100

  • #
    sillyfilly

    I’m reticent to give this a run but it’s seems reasonably reported, though the questions of land holder rights under state law is highly contentious and we already have the Mining Act of similar ilk.
    We are devastated with the conspiracy theories, innuendoes and utter rubbish sprouted by some members of news forums and websites declaring to support Peter who clearly know nothing about this situation but have taken whatever they have read at face value, and accepted it as gospel

    316

    • #
      Matty

      From January 2010 ? Almost as old as Copenhagen. It’s relevance to current proceèdings being … ?

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Sillyfilly is somewhat temporally challenged. It comes from an understanding that grass grows, because it gets eaten.

        120

        • #
          panzerJ

          As an ex-farm manager one of the contributing reasons that grass does grow is that it is eaten,most grass species have a maximum length that they will grow to they will then stop growing and set their seed,which is fine and good if you are growing cereal crops but if you are a grazier/dairy farmer you will want the grass to continue growing,so grazing or cutting/slashing is used.

          50

      • #
        Robert

        SF reminds me of a few of my relatives unfortunately, they too have a penchant for speaking without first engaging the brain.

        40

    • #
      James Bradley

      sf,

      Obviously a couple of aspects as to why the farm may not have been finacially viable. Probably all valid now as then.

      However the legal argument is about the rights of the state government to take private property without fair compensation.

      That should concern us all.

      140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We are devastated with the conspiracy theories, innuendoes and utter rubbish sprouted by some members of news forums and websites declaring to support Peter who clearly know nothing about this situation but have taken whatever they have read at face value, and accepted it as gospel

      Sounds like one more reason to get it all hashed out in court, publically with all the power of discovery that goes with a trial.

      I’ll bet that the profitability of the farm was definitely hurt by laws preventing clearing, whether or not there were other reasons for lost profits.

      I’m a big fan of trials because they are public and because both sides have access to compulsion by the court to get disclose all pertinent information from the other. So let the trial do its job.

      110

      • #
        gnome

        Have a look at the trees at the top of this article Roy. That is Eucalyptus pauciflora, what we call snowgum in Australia, though when it grows in good condition it is called cabbage gum because it can grow lush leaves up to 1/4 inch thick. It might be the world’s most resilient tree and when it grows in reasonable soil, with good water it grows as a worthwhile timber tree. The closer it get to the treeline, the poorer it is, and here it is pretty close to the treeline. Imagine milling the stuff in the picture?

        You don’t have land as poor as this in any settled part of the US. If this land was cleared it wouldn’t grow anything for years. Sheep would starve all year round and freeze in the 10 months of the year that aren’t midsummer. There isn’t any soil, just shale shattered by frost.

        The Murrumbidgee River runs through some adjacent properties, but it doesn’t rise here, it comes from further south and west from snowfall in higher country which catches almost all the rainfall headed for this area. It used to flood but our national pride, the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme stopped that. The flow continues by agreement because of downstream development. The old riverflats were never much good, and now they are mostly dominated by an imported weed called serrated tussock, which isn’t eaten by any species over 10 grams bodyweight.

        The Spencer property doesn’t include the old riverflats. The Bredbo River to the northeast is at a much lower altitude, and has very little flow, much of which is dedicated to a vegetable and lucerne farm. It doesn’t even deserve to be on the same map. There is some good soil at the same altitude, with the same rainfall on a basalt flow which supports some poor grazing activity, but the Spencer property doesn’t include any of this.

        The government’s actions didn’t devalue the property, it was worthless to start with.

        41

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Gnome,

          You certainly know Australia better than I do and you make a good argument. But it’s my understanding that Peter Spencer was trying to develop ways to use that land, something of an experimental venture. And even if doomed to fail, he should not have been kept from doing what he intended with his own land by the heavy hand of government without even a pittance for compensation. He had the right as a citizen of a supposedly free country to stand or fall on the result of his own decision making. And that’s the crucial argument.

          So I’ll stand by my remarks about letting the trial go forward and hash it all out publicly for everyone to see.

          40

          • #
            gnome

            I don’t disagree with you about going to trial except to add that this looks like an unequal contest which won’t go too deeply into the areas you want clarified. In fact, it is hard to work out what the trial is about from the narrative and references given here, and the link to past postings doesn’t work.

            As to the point about owners doing what they want with their land (and Peter Spencer’s plans to develop his enterprise) it is clear that he was undercapitalised to the point where it was dangerous to the land for him to proceed. We criticise dustbowl landholders now for their poor past decisions, so we should take some responsibility for protecting the land from similar mistakes now.

            You can’t expect to make money on poor land using debt financing. He seems like a real doer, but that isn’t everything. (That Paul Theroux book [was it Mosquito Coast] springs to mind.)

            If the Spencer developments failed, or he ran out of money halfway through, it wouldn’t be him paying to stop the mountain sliding downhill and raging runoff below silting up everything in the Murrumbidgee downstream as far as Burrinjuck Dam.

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Again you make a good argument.

              I think myself that certain protections of the land we depend on are a real benefit. Real conservation measures are good for everyone. And to that end, farming practices here have been improved because of what happened in the dust bowl years of the 1930s and what has been learned since then. But in the end, Peter was simply forbidden by force of law to even try what he wanted to do. And the prohibitions were not based on erosion prevention or anything to do with real conservation measures but on a political game played out in the halls of government to sidestep any real measures toward meeting Kyoto. And I’m not supporting Kyoto, it’s a disaster to anyone who took it seriously.

              If Peter had lost his shirt because of his mistakes he wouldn’t have a case or anyone’s sympathy. But the government literally ripped his shirt right off his back. His expectations may have been foolish but I can’t tell from where I am so I have to take the word of someone like you with more intimate knowledge of the terrain. But he had the right, as I’ve already argued, to stand or fall on his own merit or lack thereof.

              00

    • #
      Mark

      I remember that article and then further trawling led me to the Brigallo Act in Queensland. There is far more to this story that doesn’t include conspiracy and confiscation.

      40

    • #
      Mark D.

      Aw Silly nag, even if you believe the claim that the native vegetation laws issue predates Spencers troubles and carbon-Kyoto, tell me that those laws were not Green sponsored? Tell me that the influence of Kyoto didn’t affect Spencer. Tell me how Spencer was helped and supported by government. Tell me who was interested in his well being?

      I dare you Nag! Answer the above.

      Hate Greens.
      Hate Left.
      Hate globalists
      Hate Fabians.
      Hate Agenda 21
      Hate useless female draft daft animals

      51

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Wow! You do know how to hit back! :-)

        00

        • #
          sillyfilly

          I am no draft animal and I eat greens (and responsibly so). And didn’t Joe just put up his Agenda 21 inspired Globalised growth targets at the G20, international cooperation on international issues. Sorry, but of fabians I am ignorant, but if they disagree with you then I’ll join the majority. 5 of 6 (sorry not perfect this time, debasing the average). I am of the left of Abbott and his minchinette Gov., give you that, but then Genghis Khan could say the same!

          12

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            You’re obviously addressing me, so…

            That you are to the left of everyone who comments on JoNova is obvious. I wish I could make sense of the rest of your comment.

            A Google search on Fabians would be a good place to start so you can understand what you read the next time the word comes up.

            10

  • #
    Anton

    Here in Europe new parties that campaign on a they’re-all-the-same ticket are starting to crack the electoral mould in all countries at present. Hope Oz does the same.

    60

  • #

    grass grows, because it gets eaten.

    Yes Peter Spencer may have had sheep there by now and they would have helped to distribute and fertilise seeds. Thus he would have been sequestering CO2 and turning it into sheep. I worked up there sometimes as an apprentice tech doing maintenance etc on a Television translator transmitter site(Mount Roberts). From memory the wild pigs would benifit most from the “natural” way that has been forced on it. They were frighteningly close to us one day as we dug a new receiving antenna post in by hand. We were unarmed apart from tools and the stones we dug up with no dogs. The photo above shows how as it thickens it will become a bushfire hazard. Then all the Co2 will be realeased in one hot event. So the sequestering looks to have been defeated.
    At least SiFi has pointed out yet another example of wind farming contributing to ruin.

    80

  • #
    Robert O

    This is another insidious example of green political power. Essentially you have the city “cafe latte folk” wanting to do their thing for the environment whilst enjoying the privileges of city life, air conditioning, hospitals, schooling, good transport etc. Look at the recent Gippsland fires, nearly 200 people lost their lives due to the inability of people to undertake control burning and hazard reduction when required due to green regulation and political influence. The same thing in Canberra a few years back with their fire when you couldn’t even prune a tree. And on a world scale we have the AGW theory and heaps of protocols about world heritage areas, most of which are politically based.

    Jo, at least in WA there is some understanding of the ecology of the eucalypt forest and how to manage it properly, but the city fringe dwellers still have some problems by living in the bush.

    70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Having followed this from the time Jo first began to chronicle Peter’s hunger strike I’m very hopeful that he can win in court. But having to represent himself could be a serious blow to his chances. Is there no possibility of some pro bono support from somewhere? Surely there must be some organization in Australia that takes on the cause of the little guy.

    Representing yourself is not the best position to be in when your adversary has the resources of the government to fall back on.

    60

  • #
    Gary

    It is amazing Peter has had to go this far, we’ve got conservative Governments at the Federal level and most States. There were promises to overturn these grossly unfair laws and not just tinker around the edges as has happened, it appears none of our Politicians understand land laws and how they apply to land zoned agricultural land. I guess that is why we have all the nonsense around Vegetation, Coal mining and fracing for gas. This bad governance gives rise to all the minor parties. For our cities readers it must be remembered that only 13% of Australia’s landmass is freehold and THAT IS WHERE ALL YOUR FOOD IS GROWN.

    50

  • #
    handjive

    Here is a Quote:
    “He’s playing a political game that escapes the consciousness of the Left.
    If you need to influence an electorate full of Scientologists, you don’t go trashing “Xenu the intergalactic warlord.”
    Ditto when you’re dealing with the Church of Climate Change.

    This comment is from SMH opine:
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbott-decides-that-climate-change-thing-needs-a-dust-after-all-20141120-11qe4n.html
    (Michael. Sydney November 21, 2014, 5:42AM)
    . . .
    Is Abbott that astute?
    (shakes head)

    30

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I doubt it.

      The electorate are not full of scientologists. We don’t believe in CAGW, and we voted for him because he said he didn’t either.

      So what’s changed? The electorate, or the man?

      40

  • #
    pattoh

    “Carbon credits stored on farms are worth a lot of money”

    “What farmer could afford to let Australian trees grow?”

    Out in the Central Western country of NSW there are indeed a large number of landholders who have of recent times taken advantage of the Carbon Farming Initiative via Penny Wong/Christine Milne/ Julia Gillard’s legacy the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011.
    http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00294
    All the local participants have qualified via “Avoiding De-Forrestation “ under the act by having a compliant Property Vegetation Plan in place at a time to meet a cut off fixed to the Kyoto Protocol:-
    “In the event, after 2012, the countries that failed to meet their Kyoto obligations did not actually purchase credits, but when the Treaty was signed and when the Native Vegetation Acts were passed it was widely thought that they would have to”.

    There is a nice video in a recent Landline program:-
    http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2014/s4124482.htm

    However after the “big pay check spending hangover” has worn off, there may prove to be a few un recognized downstream consequences.
    Firstly, intuitively the carbon storage being traded is new growth on existing vegetation. This of course exists in leaves, sapwood & new roots etc. It is hard to imagine that these components & their seasonal detritus is anything other than the “fuel loading” we keep hearing about when the fires are on & everybody is pointing fingers & shouting. Now as such, the commodified & traded “resource” in the time frame from atmosphere to what ever small component hopefully ends up in soils & NOT BACK IN THE ATMOSPHERE, is entirely transient & statistically likely to end up largely back in the atmosphere in the event of conflagration.
    Will a refund/ repayment have to follow a fire?

    Secondly, we all just love receiving our regular notifications from the Valuer Generals Department. I assume that the Valuer General will view these assets as attached to the property & as they exist as a function of nature will be assessed as a component of the unimproved value of the titles. This will have immediate effects on assessed local land values & by this all property rates leviedfor both lucky participants & their neighbours.
    Thirdly, we all love receiving our insurance premium notices.
    Notwithstanding the liability inherent in physical juxtaposition ( see Rylands v Fletcher http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.cambridge.org%2Farticle_S0008197300083069&ei=aihsVJ3BN8XzoAS5nIHgCw&usg=AFQjCNGzFM62zKsw_BqgQmexcO0B2ufFkw&sig2=xl4QX3NaMc4_8ZUkaj-_Uw&bvm=bv.80120444,d.dGY) which I have been told was modified under legislation under the Carr Government, our very helpful, benevolent “friends”in the insurance industry will be rubbing their hands with glee at the likelihood of massive premium hikes.

    Is the glass ½ full or ½ empty or will it be bottomless (like that packet of Tim Tams)?

    One thing to note is that the local deals provide for an income stream for 20 years but the Responsibility of Stewardship & either costs from or loss of productive capacity by, is locked in/attached to the title for 100 years.

    Cue red thumbs…….

    50

  • #
    Rob Herron

    I won’t give a cent to this fight. He will lose because he believes Australians have a right to property. They do not. “fee simple” from the Crown is trumped by the right of the Crown to take your property, make laws on how you can use it and tax it as much as they like.

    Most people believe the own their homes and other property but nothing in the Constitution provides this. On the contrary the Constitution makes it clear the Government can take any property they want at any time, and notwithstanding a “right” to compensation, the Crown can nullify that as well.

    Don’t waste your money. You lose.

    —-
    Rob, and that kind of attitude is exactly what the government hopes we will take. What kind of country do we want to live in? The constitution is only as strong as the people who defend it. I’m not going to put up with letting them get away with it, and if there enough of an outcry, enough attention, we still win from this court case even if the judge doesn’t not support Peter. Peter has a strong case. – Jo

    12

    • #
      Backladderthe4th

      You go Rob Heron,

      Let’s all embrace communism and the right of the state above the rights of the people.

      I still have the black and white glossy of Olga on her tractor ploughing up a record for the 5 year plan in 1957.

      Proud, proud moment.

      Nearly as fulfilling as when the previous government almost passed media laws that would censor negative comments of the government, what a greivous loss to our freedom of speech when the senate blocked that one.

      But you, Rob heron, stand tall, let’s all rally to take the land off the farmers and give it to the state.

      After all – hard work never hurt anyone important.

      Let’s all rally around your call and rescind Mabo and take back the Native Title Act.

      Courageous philosophy, courageous words.

      More to be applauded than put sh#t upon…

      00

  • #
    panzerJ

    I come from a rural/farming background,well before all this malarkey came about farmers worth their salt could see the writing on the wall regarding environmentalism and put practises into place to prepare,that included the clearing of land and making certain that regrowth was kept back,unfortunately for the Spencer’s they probably didn’t have the funds for major land clearing,that’s the vagaries of farming.
    Some of the blame goes onto govts some has to go on Peter Spencer.
    I do feel sorry for him, but you all must understand that the land that you own is not entirely yours to do with as you like.

    53

  • #
    michael hart

    It may not help Peter Spencer, but China is on the case. They’ll need more land for agriculture.

    20

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    The abolishment of private property comes straight from the communist manifesto by Karl Marx

    30

    • #
      pattoh

      The UN, which in spirit is a Fabian institution, is seeking a Global Government/ NWO via the mechanism of controlling a Global Currency & exchanges with units of Carbon Credits.

      UN Elected
      UN Answerable

      & if human nature is anything to judge human action by

      potentially corruptable

      Apologies to the Orwell Purists & the Thought Police but “Doubleplusgood!” ( no /sarc because that is not allowed!)

      & RvT: do a bit of homework on who bought & paid for the October Revolution

      20

  • #
    • #
      warcroft

      This is gold!

      “For the record, the most extreme spike in Australian temperature records came in the last really big El Niño in 1998. That spike was so extreme that many people now mistakenly believe the world has stopped warming since then.”

      41

    • #
      Robert

      When is it NOT the hottest whatever on record?

      I’ve heard that claim so many times that even my subconscious slips into a temporary coma until whoever is saying it stops talking.

      Reminds me of some of my relatives who when I cook for them always reply “that was the best ever!” To the point where I intentionally screwed up the meal once only to hear the same thing.

      When every year is “the hottest on record” even though observations indicate otherwise, the records become meaningless.

      60

  • #
    pat

    it was only a matter of time before Ove popped up!!!

    21 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam: Great Barrier Reef will be ‘slaughtered’: scientists dismiss Julie Bishop’s claim reef not at risk
    While Ms Bishop and other Coalition leaders have criticised the US President’s intervention, leading scientists have come to his support…
    President Obama was “right on the money”, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the university’s Global Change Institute, said. “He was stating a fact.”
    “We have one of the jewels of the planet in our possession and we should care a lot about climate and he wasn’t getting that from our leader [Prime Minister Tony Abbott],” Dr Hoegh-Guldberg said…
    The reef has already shrunk by half in 30 years, he added, with climate change a factor in its retreat…
    Charlie Veron, a former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, went further saying the Abbott government was downplaying the dire future facing the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs everywhere.
    “In the long term, that is the whole of this century, we are going to have the Great Barrier Reef slaughtered,” Charlie Veron, a world authority who has scientifically named about one quarter of all known corals, said. “There’s no doubt about that at all, if carbon-dioxide emissions keep on tracking as they are.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/great-barrier-reef-will-be-slaughtered-scientists-dismiss-julie-bishops-claim-reef-not-at-risk-20141121-11r4a6.html

    10

  • #

    [...] JoNovaPeter Spencer versus The Commonwealth — starts Monday in the Federal Court. Help Needed!November 20, 2014 [...]

    00

  • #
    pat

    21 Nov: Age: Paolo Totaro: UK Tories slam Tony Abbott on climate policy
    The attitude of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the global challenges of climate change is “eccentric”, “baffling” and “flat earther”, according to a group of senior British Conservatives.
    The group, including Prime Minister David Cameron’s Minister for Energy and a former Thatcher Minister and chairman of the Conservative Party, says Mr Abbot’s position on climate change represents a betrayal of the fundamental ideals of Conservatism and those of his political heroine, Margaret Thatcher.
    In a series of wide-ranging, separate interviews on UK climate change policy with The Age, they warn that Australia is taking enormous risks investing in coal and will come under increasing market and political pressure to play its part in the global battle against climate change…
    Their comments come almost 25 years to the day since former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher addressed the United Nations to place climate change on the global environmental agenda. “It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways,” she said…
    According to Lord Deben, chairman of the independent Climate Change Commission and a minister in both the Thatcher and Major governments, Australia will come under increasing market pressure to respond to the global shift toward renewable energy.
    A former chairman of the British Conservative Party, Lord Deben said Mr Abbott has betrayed the fundamental tenets of conservatism itself…
    Tim Yeo, chairman of the UK’s parliamentary select committee on energy and climate change and a former environment minister under John Major, likened those who question the existence and the science of climate change as “the flat earthers of the 16th century”…
    “If I was Australian, I’d be concerned if my country’s economic future and prosperity became dependent on continued coal export.” …
    Almost 20 per cent of Britain’s electricity is now produced by renewables, with eight per cent powered by wind – equivalent to about 6.5 million homes…
    Mr Abbott declined to comment.
    http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/uk-tories-slam-tony-abbott-on-climate-policy/ar-BBeQHyp

    17 Nov: BishopHill: Why does Lord Deben misreport the science of extreme weather?
    As somebody who knows little or nothing of science, let alone climatology, his appointment was always more about sending out messages to target voters than the provision of meaningful or useful information. As if to underline the point, the noble lord has sent out a tweet today on the subject of extreme weather:

    – Pity it takes American to tell #Abbott truth about Australia. Climate change makes extreme weather worse & #coal is a cause.–

    READ ON…
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/17/why-does-lord-deben-misreport-the-science-of-extreme-weather.html

    20

    • #
      Spotted Reptile

      Almost 20 per cent of Britain’s electricity is now produced by renewables, with eight per cent powered by wind – equivalent to about 6.5 million homes…

      So let’s reinterpret that quote: Over 80 per cent of Britain’s electricity is still produced by fossil fuels. The small 20% produced by renewables comes at a very high cost of subsidies because renewable energy is still not viable commercially.

      Puts it in a different light doesn’t it.

      80

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but I see someone is finally addressing the outsourcing of emissions by the developed world to less developed countries:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-cutters-outsourcing-their-emissions/story-e6frg6xf-1227130154682

    I vaguely remember someone writing about this in the Australian context on this web site. Oh wait, that was me :)

    30

  • #
    pat

    as for Yeo -

    UNITED KINGDOM : Yeo touts nuclear energy in Europe
    Intelligence Online (subscription)-12 Nov 2014
    British Conservative MP Tim Yeo, the head of the parliamentary energy committee, is working as a lobbyist for the nuclear industry.

    June 2013: UK Telegraph: Lobby row: Energy policy MP Tim Yeo ‘filmed boasting about introducing businessmen to Government’
    The Conservative MP who scrutinises energy policy has been filmed boasting that he can be paid to introduce businessman to members of the Government.
    When asked if he would be interested in a £7,000-a-day consultancy contract with a solar company, the MP said: “If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections.”
    The reporters queried if this included Government figures. Mr Yeo replied “Yes”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10108457/Lobby-row-Energy-policy-MP-Tim-Yeo-filmed-boasting-about-introducing-businessmen-to-Goveronment.html

    James Delingpole: ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/

    Delingpole’s “‘Trougher’ Yeo: we mustn’t laugh…” is worth a re-read too. find it online.

    20

  • #
    pat

    in case anyone is a subscriber:

    UNITED KINGDOM : Yeo touts nuclear energy in Europe
    Intelligence Online (subscription)-12 Nov 2014
    British Conservative MP Tim Yeo, the head of the parliamentary energy committee, is working as a lobbyist for the nuclear industry.

    20

  • #
    TimiBoy

    A hundred bucks was the least I could do. Pony up, people.

    10

  • #
    Ceetee

    I know diddly about the background to this but I urge all you good uns to fight here because a cornerstone of any reputable democracy are private property rights.

    30

  • #
    pat

    20 Nov: BBC: Roger Harrabin: Rich countries to discuss Green Climate Fund in Berlin
    Rich nations previously vowed that by 2020, developing countries would get $100bn (£64bn) a year from such a fund.
    The Berlin conference aims to create a focus that will embarrass governments to come forward with contributions.
    The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is supposed to hold at least $10bn by the end of 2014…
    It is thought that the UK will pledge around $1bn from existing aid budgets.
    The UK’s contribution will come out of the £3.87bn budget set aside in the aid budget from 2011-2016 for helping poor countries get clean energy and adapt to climate change…
    The fund was agreed because developed nations have caused the majority of global warming so far – and their CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere for 100 years. Poor countries asked for help to adapt to climate change they have not caused.
    As greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, rich nations acknowledged a degree of self-interest in helping developing countries to invest in clean technology too…
    Asad Rehman from Friends of the Earth said: “Helping poorer nations to develop their economies cleanly and without wrecking our atmosphere is in all of our interests….
    “Britain’s contribution must also be new and additional money – not raided from existing aid pledges. Some of it should come from the hundreds of millions of pounds they hand over every year to dirty energy corporations,” he added…
    (CLIMATE-SCEPTIC???)The climate-sceptic Australian government says it will not commit money…
    We expect a minimum of $15bn to come out of the pledging conference. We are glad that, with the recent US and Japan pledges, it has reached around $7.5bn,” he (Pa Ousman Jarju, Gambia’s environment minister) said.
    There has already been acrimony over the tardy contributions from some rich nations – and Mr Jarju warned mistrust would increase if rich countries failed to make proper contributions.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30123932

    20 Nov: CarbonBrief: Mat Hope: Briefing: Country pledges to the UN’s Green Climate Fund
    Here’s our guide to the fund, the pledges, and the conditions attached to the contributions…
    When the fund is fully operational, world leaders have committed to contributing $100 billion a year. That should happen by 2020…
    The GCF had originally aimed to get countries to pledge $15 billion in seed funding by the end of this year, but it lowered the target to $10 billion in September…
    Of the money channeled through the GCF, half will go to funding adaptation measures in developing countries, such as better flood defences, drought monitoring schemes, and water management systems…
    The other half of the GCF’s money will go towards helping developing countries curb their emissions, by decarbonising their energy and transport infrastructure…
    The GCF is politically important…
    The UK has pledged to fund 12 per cent of the GCF up to £720 million, or about $1.1 billion, over three years. It has pledged the most of any European nation.
    Earlier this week, prime minister David Cameron told journalists the pledge was not “new money”, and would come out of the UK’s existing climate aid budget. That means the pledge contributes towards the UK’s commitment to use 0.7 per cent of its gross national income for overseas development assistance.
    However, the government has been reluctant to discuss the details of the contribution. This reluctance has been linked to thepoliticisation of climate aid in the UK. Earlier this week the Daily Mail ran an article claiming some Tory MPs were “furious” the prime minister was giving funds to “Third World flood defences”…
    The US has pledged $3 billion over four years.
    The New York Times says it is “unclear” whether the funds would be drawn from existing or new sources. If the president wants additional funds, he will have to ask Congress. But the Senate’s new Republican leadership has made it a priority to roll back Obama’s climate action plan, and would almost certainly block any requests for extra financial aid to fund climate efforts.
    If a Republican wins next year’s presidential election, they would also have the power to override the pledge. So whether the US will deliver the money is far from certain…
    Australia
    (CLIMATE SKEPTIC???)The country’s climate skeptic prime minister Tony Abbott said the country was already contributing to global efforts to tackle climate change through the country’s green bank and foreign aid…
    Its neighbour New Zealand today pledged $3 million to the GCF…
    The UNFCCC estimates that by 2030 poor countries would need between $28 billion and $59 billion a year, the World Bank thinks between $20 billion and $100 billion a year, the European Commission estimates between $10 billion and $24 billion a year by 2020, and the African Group of climate change negotiators arrived at a sum of more than $67 billion a year by 2020.
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/briefing-country-pledges-to-the-green-climate-fund/

    10

  • #
    pat

    20 Nov: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Spending Falls, Threatening 2-Degree Target
    Spending on carbon-reduction and climate-protection measures by governments and companies fell for a second year, threatening the United Nations’ goal to cap global warming at safe levels, according to a research report.
    World expenditures on renewables, energy efficiency and measures that protect against the effects of climate change slid $28 billion, or 8 percent, to about $331 billion in 2013, according to the report published today by the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based analysis company.
    Governments are trying to devise a new global agreement by the end of next year that would cap the increase in the world’s temperature since the Industrial Revolution to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). To achieve that, annual spending on measures like wind and solar power needs to more than double to $790 billion by 2020, the International Energy Agency says…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/climate-spending-falls-threatening-2-degree-target.html

    20 Nov: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: How the UK’s nuclear new-build plans keep getting delayed
    Doubts surfaced again today with the Times reporting a “secret government review” into French firm EDF’s plan to build a new plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
    The review is costing tens of millions, the Times says, and is trying to establish whether EDF can complete the new plant by 2023 as it has promised.
    The news follows an announcement from EDF that its Flamanville plant in Normandy is facing further delays. The project uses identical designs to the Hinkley scheme.
    Flamanville was supposed to take five years to build and begin operating by 2012. Instead it will now take 10 years, and open in 2017. A third identical project at Olkiluoto in Finland is nearly a decade behind schedule.
    New nuclear capacity is a key part of UK government plans for decarbonisation…
    It’s worth emphasising of course that the Hinkley Point reactors are not yet under construction. EDF had originally said it would finish building them in 2017, indeed chief executive Vincent de Rivaz said some people would be cooking their 2017 christmas dinner using new nuclear power.
    De Rivaz now says the project will be finished in 2023. Preparatory groundwork has already started. Carbon Brief asked EDF when construction of the plant itself will begin and how long it will take to finish. EDF said that level of detail was not yet available…
    It isn’t only the finish date that has changed for the UK’s new nuclear plans. The costs have also skyrocketed.
    Back in 2008 the white paper on new nuclear in the UKsuggested it would cost £2.8 billion to build a first of its kind 1.6 gigawatt plant, with a range of between £2 and £3.6 billion.
    The government later said in 2013 that the the Hinkley C project of two 1.6 gigawatt reactors would cost £16 billion. When the European Commission gave the deal the green light in October it said the project would cost £24 billion…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/how-the-uks-nuclear-new-build-plans-keep-getting-delayed/

    10

  • #
    pat

    20 Nov: AFP: Green Climate Fund pledges reach $9.3 bn
    Money from the fund will be used as grants or loans to help poor countries finance projects such as solar and wind farms, planting trees or disaster-proofing infrastructure…
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/25572546/green-climate-fund-pledges-reach-9-3-bn/

    20 Nov: NRDC: Jake Schmidt: US Financial Support of Green Climate Fund is in America’s Interest
    The U.S. pledge of $3 billion to the GCF is an outgrowth of the fund launched by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in 2008. In 2008, Secretary Paulson penned an op-ed in the Financial Times with his counterparts in the U.K. and Japan that detailed the need for a “Clean Technology Fund”…
    In response to the pledge from the U.S. to the GCF Former Secretary Paulson said:
    “I was also pleased to see the President’s leadership at the G-20 Summit in Brisbane today through the U.S. pledge to join other countries through an investment in the Green Climate Fund. This fund is conceived of the same principles that governed the Climate Investment Fund, which I helped to establish as Treasury Secretary. It sought to leverage market forces to incentivize the development and deployment of new clean technologies in China and other developing nations, which will create American jobs and help us deal with the massive risks of climate change. Believing this was in our national interest – both economically and environmentally – President Bush received bipartisan support for his $2 billion commitment to that fund in 2008 – and I urge our lawmakers to support this parallel effort through the Green Climate Fund.”…
    The U.S. contribution is in America’s interest as the GCF will help:
    Spur global clean energy deployment, creating new markets for renewable energy and energy efficiency companies. Leading U.S.-based companies are already tapping into the growing clean energy market and more are poised to join. U.S.-based companies have already taken advantage of the predecessor funds ranging such as Iowa based Clipper Wind securing a purchase of 27 wind turbines thanks to a wind project in Mexico supported by the Clean Technology Fund.
    The GCF will help speed up these markets by working with key countries to develop tangible projects that will help transform markets for wind, solar, energy efficiency, and geothermal around the world…
    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/us_financial_support_of_green.html

    20

  • #
    Louis

    It matters little what you do if you continue voting as you have in the past.
    A new theme… make a politician redundant, vote the sitting Member last or don’t vote at all or cast a ‘Langer Vote’… sitting member 1 all others 2. Yes, all the foregoing may sound negative but you MUST start somewhere. New political Parties have failed as have the present ‘self-seeking’members.
    The method of voting in the electoral system ensures that the present malfeasance will continue so change your voting pattern… take charge of YOUR VOTE NOW!

    30

    • #
      GI

      Well, I know how I’m gonna vote.

      She had the right idea nearly 20 years ago and focussed attention on a problem that has since festered away at the fabric of Australian society and Aussie culture.

      Multiculturalism.

      It’s as bad as it gets when our own politicians, church leaders and national MSM declare a group to be messangers of love and peace because it accepts all cultures.

      Curiously, it doesn’t take much to get in, but you can only leave on pain of death.

      Ancient rituals where women are precluded for the most part, ceremonies involving the ritualistic slaughter of goats.

      Rites steeped in mystery and networks of secret acolytes now working in every level of government and the public service.

      Damn you Lodge 416…

      10

      • #
        the Griss

        lol.. you have so many identities…. no wonder you got one wrong :-)

        For those who haven’t figured it out.. the avatar is linked to the email address.
        Type the email address wrongly, you get the wrong avatar.

        10

        • #
          Backladderthe4th

          Griss,

          Just one letter, one stinking little letter…

          00

        • #
          Chesterdude

          Griss,

          Nice to see you smiling again, blood sugar levels must be back to normal.

          00

        • #
          Shrilly Filly

          Griss,

          Alright, it was a q, I typed a q instead of a g – so shoot me.

          00

        • #
          Soused

          Huh, The Griss,

          Who calls themselves ‘The’ anyway?

          Deniers…

          Typically ignorant response from the unscientific skeptics brigade of idiots.

          Divert attention from the facts, the real facts which are, obviously, that the information is cherry picked once again.

          If The Griss, and I use ‘The’ very, very lightly, had bothered to read the full text he would have read that the leaf dropped.

          Now the reason for the leaf dropping is plain as ‘The’ mug holding the mug.

          The increase in atmospheric CO2 caused an early disruption to the normal seasonal change – a climate clange or a disruption to the climate if you will – thereby causing an early onset of autumn at the end of spring.

          What more proof of climate change do you deniers need.

          The leaves are falling, the leaves are falling…

          02

        • #
          Soused

          PS

          The Griss,

          Consider youself soused…

          02

    • #
      GI

      Well, I know how I’m gonna vote.

      She had the right idea nearly 20 years ago and focussed attention on a problem that has since festered away at the fabric of Australian society and Aussie culture.

      Multiculturalism.

      It’s as bad as it gets when our own politicians, church leaders and national MSM declare a group to be messangers of love and peace because it accepts all cultures.

      Curiously, it doesn’t take much to get in, but you can only leave on pain of death.

      Ancient rituals where women are precluded for the most part, ceremonies involving the ritualistic slaughter of goats.

      Rites steeped in mystery and networks of secret acolytes now working in every level of government and the public service.

      Damn you Lodge 416…

      Bugga, I dropped me leaf, please don’t look at my face, it’s bland and unexpressionless.

      20

  • #
    Brad Jensen

    Why are we fighting man-made global warming? To impress Jodie Foster.

    40

  • #
    Mal )

    Balance at the ABC, what a farce…. it 80% pro labor, OK 20% lib, so cut ABC/SBS by 60% and restore balance. Sounds good to me

    40

  • #

    I am very, very sorry to see you subjecting yourself to this, Peter. I wish I could give you some words of encouragement but the simple fact is that in this socialist s—hole of a country you have no rights and you are both the wrong demographic and have the wrong cause to attract the sympathies of the [I dare not say it, for fear of being jailed]. In socialist Australia, you just have to lie down and take it.

    When a certain leftist incurred a large legal bill from pursuing an environmental cause, that person knew they could rely on the leftist machine to step in and cover the legal costs – no doubt the money indirectly came from us. But mainstreamers are not politically active and do not have access, via NGOs, to the bottomless pit of taxpayers money. Your best hope is to get one of the major rural NGOs to sponsor you, but I suspect they are too close to the political parties.

    And let’s never forget the person Jo reported on in WA who was jailed as a result of events that followed his clearing of his land.

    What a socialist dump of a country Australia has become.

    50

  • #
  • #

    …. What a fascissocialist dump of a country Australia has become ….

    Insidiously engineered that way, it will get worse until it spirals irreversibly into despotism, tyranny, into the third world and — now that the cancer that is islam is seeded, is established and is metastasizing there — way worse.

    Way, way worse.

    For though any good there ever was in the chaotic, criminal, traitor, Whitlam, was interred with his bones, the evil that he did lives after him.

    As was his intention all along!

    Thank you. Ms Nova.

    Good luck, Mr Spencer!

    Brian Richard Allen.

    50

  • #
    Jock Strap

    The fact that no lawyer would appear pro bono strongly suggests that there is no valid legal basis for Spencer’s claim. The most likely outcome is Spencer receiving a huge legal bill to pay the Commonwealth’s costs.

    ——-
    Ah yes, as usual. Mr Vegas aka Jock Strap / Bananabender /sockpuppet is here with no actual legal argument, nor moral or ethical case, just another fallacy by consensus, as if there is no career pressure or incentives for lawyers to steer clear of controversial politically correct cases against the largest legal client in the nation. Predictable. – Jo

    24

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    First thanks Jo, for this news

    Needless to say I’d not hear or read of the imminent Federal Court hearing. However a Google search brought up this ABC report in June. The audio of the interview with Peter Spencer is well worth playing, not least because it brings out the choice between taxpayers paying for the carbon locked up by the collusive deal or letting property owners resume suspended grazing and farming [and claim for taxpayers to compensate for years of lost use.

    Which brings me to my continuing collection of undisputed evidence that the establishment [including our ABC] media has suppressed and still suppresses graphic evidence of the correlation between undisputed evidence of changing “global” atmospheric temperature and increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Samples of Al Gore’s notorious but now media- suppressed “hockey stick” are here.

    Unless this graphic evidence is introduced into the court the case will be decided on the questions of law that you have explained. Do you recall my email on ‘Media AGW blunders or complicity in fraud?’ to you and others after Tony Gomme’s selling DVDs of Christopher Monckton and Professor Ian Plimer presentations in Feb 2010? I picked up on Tony’s “Not only will all Media be forced to take note of this 2nd time round …” and pointed out that he was implicitly admitting that the 1st time we did not force the mainstream media to publish the simple fact that there is no [statistically significant] evidence of AGW.

    My question is how do we get Peter’s team to introduce the graphic evidence against AGW; and for the ABC to finally correct its errors and report what has suppressed since before 2009 – updated, undisputed “hockey stick” and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration graphs?

    20

  • #
    Steve Richards

    People could consider this state of affairs to be the result of the law of ‘unintended consequences’ however, is it?

    I suspect this is what greens want, to return the land back to as it was before human influence.

    Vote green get stupid.

    And as we know, green propaganda spreads like oil on water and infects other parties too.

    10

  • #
    James Loring

    Thanks for putting this up Jo.
    As a simmillarly affected landowner this subject is on my mind every single day. So glad to see Peter’s still pushing forward. Obviously hoping for his success. Unfortunately I can’t help but feel pessimistic knowing who and what Peter and the rest of us are up against. These private property controls would have to be among the greatest acts of constitutional subversion this countries ever seen. Everyone familiar with it knows it. Espescially those involved who stubbornly refuse to know anything about it. Their public reputations are at stake. Of course those familiar with it all are in no doubt about the character of the actions of those who initiated the creation of these laws but the general populace have been kept ill informed. Indeed the wrong in all this is self evidenced by the determined avoidance of the issue by those involved.
    It’s great to hear Peter’s able to call witnesses but we have to remember when reputations are at stake people can and do collude and simply lie.

    10

  • #
    rob

    the first thing k rudd did after being elected prime minister in 2007 was to fly bali and sign the Kyoto agreement the carr govt in n.s.w introducted the native vegetation act the sad thing is that when the liberal nationals get in they change nothing there is really no one to vote for any more

    20

  • #
  • #
    Judy Ryan

    I hope that the Abbott/ Newman government will clean up the mess that their predecessor John Howard created.

    Good luck Peter Spencer. I’ve donated $50, which is a lot for me. Ive written to the Farmers fighting fund, and Ive tweeted Jo’s page. It will be interesting to see what the media does. If they misbehave I will certainly use the # to their disadvantage. For example anytime any one types in something like #canberratimes #smh etc etc in their tweet others will find it when they type in the same hashtag.

    20

  • #
    Bill Burrows

    Sorry I’ve arrived very late to this Post. Here is a link to a (largely) Queensland perspective on the impact of tree clearing bans in a region where the ‘intact’ woodlands have thickened considerably since the introduction of domestic livestock: http://www.propertyrightsaustralia.org/documents/1369869440_bush_clearing_2013_dr_bill_burrows.pdf
    I might add that the vegetation community depicted in the photo at the head of this Post (on Peter Spencer’s land) appears to be no way pristine (too many young saplings present). Looks like it needs a good fire also (to benefit the native flora and fauna).

    30

  • #
    Matt Thompson

    Peter is perhaps the most committed man I have ever met in my life. I think he should be Aussie of the Year!

    20

  • #

    …. The Howard government advanced the cause of Marxism in rural Australia …. by maintaining Keating’s policies ….

    (Keating’s because Hawke, at the time, was out the back having a Cuppa tea, a Bex and a nice fall um lie down)

    The cause of Leninism, actually. Of fascism.

    I’m sure – despite he was and is an economics illiterate (and, aren’t they all?) Mr Howard was always well-intentioned, although not as well so as is the quite Visionary Prime Minister Abbott.

    But the dirty little secret of Australian politics is that Left among the detritus of the chaos and crime that marked the traitor Whitlam’s time in office, are all of the bricks and mortar and other requirements for a spiraling pathway into the totalitarian state.

    Beginning with its essential element, government “health care,” the component part that makes it impossible to change course and/or to reverse direction.

    That evil’s designer, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov “Lenin,” said of it and such of its instant endorsers as Hitler and, before Whitlam, his mass-murdering mate, Mao, enthusiastically agreed”

    “Government “health care” is the keystone to the archway through which we will force-march all free Men into the totalitarian state.”

    That set the tone and the situation at the moment, descended from that starting point, is that, while the other 80% (including all of the bureaucrats, all of the unionists, [AKA as "the mobsters"] all of the media, all of the corporate lobbyists and most of the politicians) call the shots, ONLY 20% OF AUSTRALIANS PAY ANY NET TAX.

    And that’s what both Mr Howard and Mr Abbott must face every day as they pull on their pants. That Mr Abbott has a ten-times better appreciation of that reality than did the gun-grabber, Mr Howard, may put Aus in a better position — but it remains to be seen.

    Brian Richard Allen

    11

  • #
    gai

    Jo,
    This guy is a lawyer, an engineer and thinks CAGW is crap. Perhaps he can help?
    http://australianclimatemadness.com/about/

    00

  • #

    G,day Jo and followers-
    First glimpse of msm- yesterday arvo – http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/hunger-strike-heros-day-in-court/2718570.aspx
    Will be commenting for Monday. Well done to Dr David Evans for being an expert witness. FINALLY we see this start.
    I could write a book about the rollercoaster ride of this case.Peter probably will one day and it will be stranger than fiction.I wish Alastair and the loyal team of reseachers the very best. Re the money…..I spent 2 years in the trenches with Peter and many thousands of $’s putting out bushfires (gave Alastair a bit of a break) but the greedy multinational meat processors and drought have virtually finished all of us.Can’t even get the dole while we own an unsaleable asset!
    The pressure of it all (the trenches) meant that I had to walk away for my own sanity so I know Peter and the workload and the costs of dubious value legal practitioners- all too well . The pallet loads of evidence is a lay down mazare if he gets any sort of a fair hearing imo.I personally got the AFFF funding and their were many strings attached and conficting agendas…………I wasn’t surprised when I heard that they had bailled……..I am confident that Peter is much better off representing himself as nobody knows more about this than he does. Spencer was the first test case for compensation and because his claim was so large and thorough- this 10 years of stalling was/IS all about precedents……….all sides of politics (state and Fed) are complicit ……..so if there is ANY rule of law left….we will see a positve result

    30

    • #

      Rob, thanks for the update. Thanks for your help.

      Spencer is remarkable. The process has been gruelling. As Steyn says: The process is the punishment — but when you have already lost your life’s work, it is amazing he could go back for more punishment.

      20

  • #
    Jim Stewart

    Good to see you again Rob & thanks for your news.

    It’s been nearly two years since you left ‘Just Grounds‘, which I see is still up but with negligible activity, but still 3416 members. We became ‘friends there in 2010!

    As for your confidence that Peter is much better off representing himself as nobody knows more about this than he does. More importantly he is free to get in the witness stand and state facts that the court needs to hear and the media is still suppressing. He and David could both be cross-examined but it’s more likely government lawyers will object to either taking to the stand under oath!

    As one who has had a government solicitor submit false testimony against mine and get away with it, I know that government solicitors usually collude with court registrars and judges in such perversions of the course of justice. Hence my focus on how cases are reported or not, by the media.

    As Jo and others know, my efforts are intended to inform the public of evidence suppressed by the establishment media, but published online. A good example is suppression of Al Gore’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph updated and corrected to exclude disputed and statistically insignificant data. A good example is the suppression of GreenPeace founders Patrick Moore’s presentation two years ago on Canadian breakfast TV, and even the news that he was in Australia and interviewed by Alan Jones last month!

    Fearless hosts like Alan Jones are our best hope, particularly after his 2010 support for Peter. That’s why I sent this feedback after Jo alerted me to the Federal Court hearings last week:
    Alan, you were one of the only commentators to support Peter Spencer’s campaign nearly five years ago. Please keep you audience informed of his latest court hearing which starts tomorrow in the Federal Court before Justice Gummow.
    Having appeared before Gummow years ago, I don’t expect Peter will get justice but you could help by reminding listeners that the origins of the crisis facing Peter and millions of other landowners is a global failure of established media outlets to correct and update Al Gore’s “hockey stick”.

    Did anyone reading this attend last week’s hearings, or may be able to attend this week, both to meet Peter’s team and to report which, if any, media reporters were present?

    10