Farmers Vent Anger at Vegetation Management Laws

"National Chop A Tree Day - Day 2"

G'day Agmates,

Opposite are 4 photo's sent to us by a NSW Farmer taken of him "Illegally" chopping down his 1st tree yesterday July 1st as part of the civil disobedience act that he and an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Farmers across 4 states are taking part in.

Now onto today's comments about "The Great Vegetation Act Debate Begins" based on Professor Suri Ratnapala's paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover"

We've had some great comments and now welcome any more comments on todays comments printed below or on Part One before we move onto part TWO. If you wish to re read Part One of his paper CLICK HERE

TODAY'S COMMENTARY:

MULGARAT Said -
Agmates:
"I would include myself as another citizen who now feels less sympathy to rural and pastoral Australia as a result of this action.
On this side of the country we are planting as many tree as possible due to land degradation left by clear felling practices.
Chop a Tree Down Day is as stupid as anything I've heard come out of the bush. A similar act of childish civil disobedience would be to leave all your taps and sprinklers running in protest of water restrictions.
Abandon this senseless campaign. If anything it will be counter productive and only get the public off side.
Given the current state of rural Australia, you need all the support you can get and felling trees out of principle won't help".
Mulgarat

Peter Gargan Said
Agmates
"It is not illegal to chop down a tree if it is your tree. Stop believing lawyers, and read what the law says. The Law says claim of right is a good defence to even 'strict liability" offences, and the noisy huffing and puffing of Turnbull and Koperberg are just that. Huff and Puff, that relies on very uneducated lawyers and gullible subjects. If you want to stop anyone cutting down a tree adopt it, and pay its maintenance. There are no free feeds in this world, so stop dreaming. Farmers would probably accept $30 a year".

WORRIED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FROM NSW said
Agmates:
"It a relief to see some one taking positive action. State Government legislation via numerous Acts and Regulations have eaten away at our ability to farm viably. The result is a never ending march, by Government towards "COMMUNISM" of our private property.
This does not just apply to rural landowners but those in townships as well.I'm glad you are trying to educate all Australians because city folk will also have valueless private property once the "community" owns everything.
City folk must be made aware of the private property grab by both Federal and State Governments on the basis of "Community' concerns that are basically government ideals branded as 'community" concerns .
This is not democracy. You have my full support Agmate!!"

SA City Dweller said
Agmates:
"I live in a township and have been affected by Council tree policy. After numerous attempts, over a period of years, to get approval to remove a tree that was threatening my house, I got approval.
However before I could get the tree removed it fell on my house. I agree with you Agmate we need common sense to prevail here. Not bureaucratic restrictions that jeopardise or financial well being and our safety".

Civily Disobedient Farmer said
Agmates:
"I'm pleased to inform you that there are now two (2) less Box Trees (woody weeds) on this property (common law Fee Simple). They were chopped down because I had no further use for them.
Could you please inform the Government to now recalculate (my inheritable) ownership of the carbon credits to reflect that the amount owing to me by the Government will be now slightly lower.
I am still waiting for the Government to uphold my inheritable estate at the common law and to be paid for any exercisable "Eminent Domain" that has been statutorily enforced and "On Just Terms" or "Market Value plus Interest" for those that don't know what 'on just terms' means.
For those "Public Officials" including jackboot Ministers that don't know what at "Eminent Domain" means, look it up in the dictionary.Of course one assumes that the media would not have a clue what any of this means, so they fit into a category which is yet to be defined".

PROPERTY RIGHTS AUSTRALIA'S QLD's JOHN PURCELL said
Agmates:
“IT IS TIME FOR OPEN AND HONEST GOVERNMENT"
"Politicians, State and Federal are held in low regard, and deservedly so. “There are few politicians who are open, honest and trustworthy; however there are very many who can only tell the truth by accident. It has been said previously the way to tell if a politician is lying is to see if his lips are moving. What a sad and sorry situation!”
What brings me to this conclusion is partly the Federal Treasurers open admission that it was “their idea to ban broadscale clearing in the States, and it was a good idea”
Why was this done and how? The story goes back to the Keating Government and brought to fruition by the Howard Government.
Conservative Government Environmental Minister Hill at the Kyoto Protocol Meeting was
successful in having adopted the so called Australia Clause! This allowed Australia to count cessation of broadscale clearing; as a result Australia was one of the few Countries to comply even though Australia has never ratified the Australian membership of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Howard Government then enlisted the States to pass legislation on an
understanding from the Federal Government to provide certain funding to the States. The Federal Government then had the State Government do their dirty work, this isolated the Federal Government from the responsibility of paying compensation as required in the Australian Constitution States are not required to pay just
compensation.
With the passing of State legislation the word was out, criticism from the rural industry became known, this caused the Federal Government to withdraw their promised $45M on the grounds that the States had ‘not consulted efficiently with landholders’. In fact this was only a window dressing to pacify conservative voters.
Does Treasurer Costello claim success in the administration and application of these State laws?
If so, is he proud of the misery and suffering inflicted on rural residents by State Compliance officers, the judgements, the Courts, the dogged pursuit of innocent people, some who spent up to $300,000 of their own savings to protect their good name? Does the Federal Government and the State Government feel proud of the loss of life brought on by mental stress?
Both Federal and State Governments know they picked on a weak link, why did they not challenge the mining industry, electricity companies, the transport industry and the list goes on.
Both Federal and State Government acted in a devious manner and did untold damage to innocent people – they stand condemned. Australia demands open and honest Governments".

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN FARMER said
Agmates:
"YOU CAN YOU INCLUDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA AS ACTIVE IN THE DISOBEDIENCE. Our Natural Resources Management Act 2004 is also a bloody nightmare and a disgrace to our rights to manage the properties as we see fit. It cannot go on like this . Put us in with you. I'm cutting down trees as well!!"

VIC FARMER - BUSH LAWYER said
Agmates:
"LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT - FEE SIMPLE"
"Abolition of Old Tenures Act 1660' and the definition or there abouts of "Fee Simple" :- "A Crown Grant of an Estate of Inheritance at the Common Law"
You may say that this type of Fee Simple has not existed for a long time and that Fee Simple is now a "Statutory" or Civil Fee Simple title and that the Common law has been extinguished in this title. O.K!!
I say that there is no such thing as a "Statutory" Fee Simple title and that the Common law can only exist in a Fee Simple title and without statutory interference. This is because of the word "Inheritance"!!!!!
Question:- How can a Statutory Fee Simple title be an "Estate of Inheritance" if the estate is subject to the whim and free will of the "Legislature"???
How does the Legislature "Guarantee" this estate of inheritance??? Surely not by another statute!!!!!!!!!
My Answer:- Statutory Fee Simple does not exist or if it does it is NOT Fee Simple because Fee Simple can only exist at Common Law because it must be an inheritable estate. If we have purchased Fee Simple where the inheritance is not guaranteed then what have we purchased??, because it is not Fee Simple????? How does one acquire a state grant and how does one acquire a crown grant??????
Civil law can recognise Fee Simple BUT it is enshrined in an extremely tight constitution where it can not be interfered with. The problem that our legislatures have is that statute law can not guarantee rights because the statute can changed or even repealed. In civil law countries (France, Germany etc) these rights are enshrined in their very tight constitutions. In common law countries these rights are enshrined in the common law itself although it must be said that civil law countries have elements of common law as well, and vice versa. However, in Australia they are progressively extinguishing the common law and replacing it with civil law without any enshrined constitutional mechanism that protect the rights lost by the removal of the common law.
Single or multiple statutes can not accommodate those rights because they can be removed or altered at the whim of the parliament or "Polite Bureau".
With regards to land ownership those rights are tied up in an "Inheritable Estate" which in this country can only be Fee Simple. Lease hold titles are not inheritable because they are titles by virtue of a "Statute" and that statute can be altered or repealed therefore there is no security of inheritance.
Therefore if the legislature removes the "Inheritance" or can not guarantee the inheritance of a "title of inheritance" that once existed, but by virtue of a statute has been removed and IN DOING SO also imposes a penalty (for destroying ones inheritance and therefore private property) therein lies an "ABSOLUTE TAKING".
The "Penalty" and criminal prosecution means that you have destroyed "Their Property" NOT YOURS therefore the inheritance has transferred to the Government and the "Public".
This is like death duties by stealth. Fancy the government being able to regulate by any sort of statute any or all of your inheritable estate whether that be your land, car, other worldly chattels or inheritable rights that you have by conception passed to your children.
When this happens its called 'Communism' where the state claims all your inheritable rights.

See you tomorrow -

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

Click HERE to go back to Agmates News Page
Click Here to go to the latest published article.