Agmates

Agmates has a New Blog Address

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:16:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

We have a new blog site. We have changed (some might say evolved) to a WordPress blog platform that is now part of the agmates site.

As you can see from the new address www.agmates.com/blog/ .

Since our last post on here I have been publishing more great articles on Agamtes News on the the www.agmates site. So go there for alook and you'll get tothe new blog.

Our News has also changed. This blog started out with just me publishing, but now we have moved to a user-contribed news service. Rural News and comment by rural people for Rural People.

So see you at the new site. Just go to www.agmates.com/News/index.html

Cheers,
Steve Truman
Agmates - 100% Pro farmers
www.agamtes.com

GREENS & NSW GOV'T DECLARE WAR ON DISSIDENT FARMERS

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:14:00 +0000

G’day Agmates,

Due to a few technical problems we have not published so far this week so there’s a lot to get through.

We have changed our format to make it easier for you to read the news on Agmates

Agmates Comments:

It just stun’s us that the mainstream rural press have once again ignore the civil disobedience “tree chop” campaign by farmers in QLD, NSW, Vic and SA. Reading either paper you would not know it was going on or more importantly the issues behind it.

The only article was by Canberra reporter Lucy Skuthorp “Choppers Barking up the Wrong Tree”. The article appeared in both the Land & Queensland Country Life”.

This article was based on an interview with David Crombie NFF president and again shows why the NFF is not fit to be the peak lobby group for farmers. Quotes taken from that article show all that the NFF can produce is dribble.

Mr Crombie (pictured)said there was no denying land clearing bans had impacted unfairly on a lot of producers and ‘the chop a day’ campaign had risen out of desperation.
He said – I just don’t think going and chopping down trees is the way to go about it.

I think it just sends a whole lot of wrong messages to the broader community.
What we are doing at the NFF is trying to put forward the outstanding record of farmers in terms of environmental management and the extent to which farmers have contributed to the reductions in emissions which has been for the community benefit in Australia.
_______________________________________________________

Agmates Comment:

No mention from Mr Crombie about the NFF actually trying to do something about farmers being compensated for government taking of their trees (land) and carbon credits.

No mention of NFF’s efforts to remove the tyrannical Native Veg Laws in each state of Australia.

No mention of fighting the Fundamentalist Green’s sponsored Native Veg Laws in each state which remove land holders property rights whilst achieving little or nothing for the environment.

The NFF as a Lobby group are a joke. The rural media as a means of keeping up to speed on “real issues’ are a failure.

Todays articles are a selection of stories the media could have run this week but chose not to – No wonder farmers rights are being eroded in this country every day. Australian farmers Peak lobby group is a joke and the mainstream media who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the bush are asleep.
________________________________________________________________________
IN TODAYS ISSUE OF AGMATES NEWS:

1. Australian beef Association Backs “Tree Chop Campaign” –

2. Nationals MP Kevin Humphries – throws his support behind dissident farmers

3. NSW Gov't & Radical Greens declare WAR on dissident Farmers

4. Comment on StateLine Show - Peter Spencer CPPA

5. Comment on StateLine Show - Australian Beef Association.

6. How Farmers can survive a raid by the Green Gestapo.

7. SA Joins the Tree Chop Campaign – Whats wrong with SA Veg Laws and Regs

8. The Great Soil Data Swindle – Michael Keily

9. Readers Comments.

10. Part Four of Professor Suri Ratnapala’s paper -

_______________________________________________________________

1. AUSTRALIAN BEEF ASSOCIATION BACKS "TREE CHOP CAMPAIGN"

AUSTRALIAN BEEF ASSOCIATION SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON TREE CHOP CAMPAIGN

Australian Beef Association Chairman Brad Bellinger (pictured) said his personal participation and that of other senior ABA Directors in the tree chopping action, has attracted some ridiculous comments from members of the public, who clearly do not understand the issues involved..........

The action of some members of the ABA executive by backing and participating in the tree-chopping campaign may seem radical. However we see ourselves as custodians of the land upon which we run our livestock in order to make a living. We support the Commonwealth Property Protection Association. We recognize that civil disobedience is a legitimate course of action in a civil society. The courts, public opinion, and the ballot box will ultimately judge the actions and arguments of all involved.

To the anonymous radical greens whom resort to abuse and threats many who have heard your method of expression, consider you to be in a class of your own. To Ben Fargher CEO of the National Farmers Federation that condemned the tree falling, you probably did so because the Federal Government told you to do so.

The ABA deplores the Federal Government’s duplicitous policy of profiting (tax and royalties and political donations) from the production, domestic consumption and export of fossil fuel, while taxing farmers by arbitrarily restricting their land use (including land clearing), to grandstand and claim carbon credits in domestic and international forums.
Click here to read this full media release on Agmates.

Back to top

_______________________________________________________________

2. NATIONAL MP KEVIN HUMPHRIES - THROWS HIS SUPPORT BEHIND DISSIDENT FARMERS

Clearing compensation
By Meg Strang ABC Reporter

Tuesday, 10/07/2007
A fierce land clearing row continues to flare in the Eastern States

Kevin Humphries, the National Party's MP for Barwon in the North Western NSW, has accused BOTH State and Federal Governments of mishandling native vegetation laws, and has thrown his support behind radical farmer group, the Commonwealth Property Protection Association.

The Association is fighting for compensation for lost property rights in the courts and claims governments have illegally appropriated farmers' carbon credits to meet international green house gas abatement commitments.

While Mr Humphries isn't advocating chopping down trees, he said farmers have been forced into radical action by bad government.

Mr Humphries says the Federal Government should not have utilized State restrictions on land clearing to meet Kyoto targets: "Not without paying compensation, and if you look at our constitution when the Federal Government resume an asset or a resource, they need to stump up compensation.

Whilst we haven't signed off on the Kyoto protocol, they certainly ratified elements of it and part of meeting our carbon credit commitment was you know the end to broadscale clearing in certain parts of the country is helping us meet those targets."
Read full interview on ABC web site here.

Back to Top
_______________________________________________________

3. NSW GOV'T AND RADICAL GREEN GROUPS DECLARE WAR ON DISSIDENT FARMERS

Last Friday nights NSW State Line with Quentin Dempster showed one of the most chilling displays of utter the arrogance and contempt that the NSW Government and the radical green groups hold for farmers.

Here's a few extracts:

QUENTIN DEMPSTER (Pictured): There's been an outbreak of political hostility around private and leasehold rural land.

A group of militant farmers has been urging landowners throughout Australia to illegally chop down trees each day before State and Federal Governments compensate them for removing their rights to clear native vegetation as they see fit.

They are mimicking tactics by green groups threatening to blockade exports over protest over climate change.

The NSW Government is under pressure to more tightly regulate logging of private native forests.

There's a dispute between conservationists and the Lands Department over the sale of thousands of hectares of crown lease-hold land at below market rates.

First, let's deal with the tree choppers.

Steve Truman, a farmer from Gympie in Queensland runs a rural marketing website called "Agmates".

From 1st July, Mr Truman claims thousands of farmers who subscribe to the website have been chopping down trees on their properties each day in a campaign of civil disobedience against both Federal and State Governments and their vegetation management acts.

EXCERPT OF EMAIL FROM STEVE TRUMAN: The peak farming bodies, including the NFF and the NSW Farmers Association have become totally ineffective on this issue. The recent admission by Federal Treasurer Peter Costello on ABC's 7:30 Report that it was Federal coalition policy that stopped landclearing so Australia could meet its Kyoto target has sparked the uprising.

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: Needless to say environment and conservation groups are outraged at the "Chop Down a Tree" tactic.

JEFF ANGEL, TOTAL ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (Pictured): The minority of farmers clearing trees as a stunt against tree clearing vegetation should be prosecuted to the full scope of the law.

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: NSW climate change and Environment Minister Phil Koperberg has appealed to the public for any information on illegal tree chopping in this State, so with the aid of satellite tracking his department can prosecute.

PHIL KOPERBERG, MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (Pictured): There are a number of potential breaches if for argument's sake the trees are being cleared or felled for landclearing purposes.

Well that clearly breaches the native vegetation legislation and penalties of up to $1.1 million if a conviction is obtained can be applied.

PHIL KOPERBERG: This is a new regime, we're in hot pursuit of people who would engage in what some might describe as "environmental vandalism".

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: In an e mail exchange Stateline asked Steve Truman:

You are inciting farmers to illegal acts. I put it to you that rather than building support across the community, this lawlessness will destroy support, confirming in the public mind that you and your supporters are irresponsible red necks?

EXCERPT OF EMAIL FROM STEVE TRUMAN: There is no bigger issue in rural Australia than farmers who have their property rights stolen by legislation. If the Federal Government wants to claim they are meeting their Kyoto targets, let them pay for the 74 million tonnes of carbon they have already accounted for in meeting their emission targets.

The value of the sequestered carbon is on the low side $1.85 billion and on the high 5.18 billion. You'd have to shut down the entire economy of New Zealand or Ireland to achieve the same reductions. The vegetation management acts are the most draconian legislation ever seen in this country. They take property from their lawful owners and invest it in the state.

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: If you really want to win this debate, shouldn't you be supporting the farmers to get compensation for the carbon sequestration services to eco management that they are indeed providing?

JEFF ANGEL: Well, the fact is everyone has an environmental responsibility. In the city we're required to look after bushland and we have tree preservation orders. There's a certain minimal level of individual responsibility which the farming responsibility did not have until we had tree clearing laws.

REECE TURNER, WILDERNESS SOCIETY: I think people would be surprised to know that on the lease-holds, these perpetual lease-holds, the lessees are only playing a flat rate of $190 a year whether they're leasing two hectares or 2,000 hectares.

GEORGINA WOODS, NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION: At the moment, what we need a moratorium on the sale of any of the high conservation value Crown leases in particular. That's a little bit over half of the Crown leases in this State.

We need an inquiry into land management generally in NSW because of the incompetence of the Department of Lands and their inability to recognize and protect conservation values.

JEFF ANGEL: I think what we're seeing with both this Crown lands issue and the tree chop minority who are going out clearing vegetation is a kickback from a minority of people both in the Crown lands Department which aren't particularly capable conservation managers and a minority of farmers who would like to keep clearing vegetation.

Those two institutions, or those two bodies of people need to be radically reformed.

The Government should not give in to them. The Crown lands Department frankly should be abolished so we can have modern conservation principles put in place.
Click here to read entire transcript of the Stateline interview

Back to Top

___________________________________________________________

4. COMMENTS ON STATELINE SHOW - PETER SPENCER CPPA

Publicly admitting their (Fundamentalist Gren Groups Total Environment Centre & World Wildlife Foundation) agenda was to stop the further granting of Freehold land, says Peter Spencer head of CPPA (Pictured)........Their claim they had spoken the minister to stop all conversions from Crown lease to Freehold is no more then a declaration of war on all property owners.

Then they showed the maps and spoke of an amount of $190 being all it cost and a demand that the Minister for lands immediately stop this process claiming all land should be controlled my stockholders and environmental limitations.

If property owners do not appreciate the real impact of this agenda and that we have been warning land owners for over ten years of the next stage in this move to abolish property rights - now here it is.

Every one in Australia who owns property of any kind should read this transcript again and be briefed on this objective as it will impact on every person across the Nation.

This outburst this threat worse then what took place behind the iron curtain is now here in Australia......it is part of a plan......Wake Australia.

This is a real eye opener.

Peter Spencer CPPA

Back to Top

___________________________________________________________

5. COMMENT ON STATE LINE SHOW FROM ABA
On the ABC’s NSW Stateline on Friday night (7/7/07) the environmental group the “Total Environment Centre” (TEC) spokespeople Mr Ian Cohen Greens (MLC in NSW), Mr Reese Turner (Wilderness Society), and Mr Jeff Angle (TEC) openly declared their collective disgust and hostility towards not only farmers but also all privately owned land owners.

The trio also called for the complete dismantling of the NSW Lands Department, which holds all the ‘Land Title Deeds’ for NSW under the ‘Real Property Act’. This outburst by the TEC, gave the public a rare insight into the environmental movement’s real political agenda, which is based more on the ideals of Communism rather than environmentalism with their statements with the removal of private ownership of all land. This cannot be accepted by the ABA.

Back to Top

_____________________________________________________________

6. SURVIVING A FARM INVASION BY THE NATIVE VEG GUESTAPO

With NSW Environment Minister Phil Koperberg promising to crush dissident farmers it is timely that we advise what you can when you suffer a farm invasion by his departments goons. Click here to read what they did to the Hudson family when they raided their property "Yarrol" at Moree.

ABC radio reported this week they they were able to confirm the following facts about the property "Yarrol".

1. It is unrestricted Freehold land.
2. It is NOT in the Heritage Ramsar Listed Gwydir Wetlands.
3. There was a Gwydir Catchment Management Authority plan in place for cleaning up
the invasive weed Lipia.

This is what they reported when they (ABC) tried to question MR Koperberg about these facts:

The Minister Phil Koperberg has declined to comment saying it is not appropriate given that the issue is still under investigation. A spokesperson for the department also declined to comment.

This is the same minister who has had plenty to say earlier when vilifying the Hudson's for their incredible act of environmental vandalism. Honestly Minister why don't you run back to your mate Reece Turner (WWF) and ask him why he perpetrated this BS in the first place.

In case you have forgotten it was Mr Turner who flew over the property and took the photo's of the weed clearing at "Yarrol" and then over the Gwydir wetlands telling the ABC (who broke the story) and the media that they were before and after shots of clearing in the Heritage listed Ramsar Wetlands.

Or perhaps Mr Koperberg might take some council from his departments former employee Mr Jeff Angel who in 2005 while still head of The Total Environment Centre worked as a paid consultant for the department of the Environment, advising the Government on Environmental Policy.

Click Here for the "WHAT TO DO WHEN THE GREEN GESTAPO RAID YOUR PROPERTY".

Back to Top

______________________________________________________________

7. SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S TREE CHOP UPDATE– WHATS WRONG WITH THE SA NATIVE VEG LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Comments on the South Australian Natural Resource Management Act

It is with absolute dismay that I read such complex draconian legislation in a South Australian Act.(Photo of trees that have been secretly chopped in South Australia as part of the campaign of Civil Disobedience)

The legislators are the servants of the voters, but anyone reading this document would conclude otherwise. Our common law rights that previously allowed us to make decisions on they way we viably manage our fee simple properties and protect the environment have gone, illegally legislated away.

Under common law, fee simple titles, we as landowners own the vegetation, a fair share of the water falling on the land and under the land, the soil, the air and any other property associated with the land. This applies to city dwellers as well. Yes, you own that tree on your property that threatens your house structure and you can cut it down without approval.

If the government believe that for the community good a landowner must give up his ownership of one of these things associated with his title the landowner is entitled to compensation, on just terms (i.e. they buy it for the community). Unfortunately the government believes that they can just abolish common law rights without compensation. To this end it has started with farmers.

Here is a direct quote from a letter from Mr John Johnson, General Manger of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board 11th September 2006; “Please note there are no provisions for compensation for the NRM Act abolishing common law rights.” The question is where does the removal of common law rights without compensation end?............

Click Here to read the full article on Agmates web site.

Back to Top
_________________________________________________________

8. THE GREAT SOIL DATA SWINDLE - Michael Keily

The federal government has swindled Australian farmers out of Billions of Dollars in Carbon Credits from trees that it's used to claim its met its Kyoto targets. Agmates has always held that they plan to do exactly the same thing with Soil Carbon Credits. Now here proof -

An email from Michael Keily - Convener of the Carbon Coalition Against

Please find attached a point by point refutation of the Grains Council's hatchet job on soil carbon credits. We've done the research, talked to the scientists who know where the bodies are buried.

Michael

PRESS RELEASE
8/7/2007
THE GREAT SOIL DATA SWINDLE
The Grains Council is using flawed scientific evidence from the Australian Greenhouse Office to attack the emerging soil carbon credit market.

“The AGO does not have the data to back up its claims about Australian soils, and industry bodies like the Grains Council are stumbling while trying to play catch up on the carbon issue,” says Convenor of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming, Wellington woolgrower Michael Keily (Pictured). The Carbon Coalition has campaigned for soil carbon credits since 2005 to give farmers an additional revenue stream to encourage landscape restoration.

“We informed the AGO more than a month ago that the data sets used to compile the reports on soils for National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) were incomplete and that they were incapable of sustaining the advice they were giving to Government and industry,” he says. “We warned the AGO that conclusions based on these data sets are misleading and wrong. Alan Umber’s report is flawed due to his reliance on this inadequate data.”

The evidence is available in the NCAS Technical Reports published by the AGO. The gaps in the data sets have been verified by several soil scientists.
The Grains Council Report is wrong on 9 counts:.......

Click Here to read the full article on Michael Keily's Web Site.

Back to Top
___________________________________________________

9. READERS COMMENTS.

Agmates has had a huge amount of comments on recent articles. Click here to go to the Agmates site to read these.

Comments by Sue Maynes, Rob Wass , Doug and various

______________________________________________________

10. PART 4 OF PROFESSOR SURI RATNAPALA'S PAPER
"CONSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM UNDER GREEN COVER"
The main concerns
Environmental law is one of the fastest growing areas of the legal system. It
comprises a vast body of statute law that includes Acts of Commonwealth and State Parliaments, subordinate legislation in the form of regulations, orders and decrees, and case law interpreting these provisions.

There are rising concerns within primary and manufacturing industries, as well as scientific and legal communities, that the processes of environmental policy
formulation and implementation are leading to outcomes having seriously negative impacts on individual producers, industries, local and national economies, civil liberties, the rule of law and on sustainable environmental protection.

In its August, 2004 Report on The Impacts of Vegetation Management and Biodiversity Regulations, the Productivity Commission acknowledged the validity of many of these concerns, and made recommendations that in effect require the radical re-evaluation of the philosophy and processes of environmental regulation in Australia. The Commission's report highlighted the following serious defects in the current regulatory system:

* Lack of cost-benefit assessments before regulations are made, and the absence of on-going monitoring and independent reviews of costs and benefits once the regulations are in operation.
* The poor quality of data and science on which native vegetation and biodiversity policy decisions are based.
* Inadequate use of the extensive knowledge of landholders and local communities in the formulation of policy and regulations.
* The failure to take account of regional environmental characteristics and agricultural practices in imposing across-the-board rules, particularly in
relation to native vegetation regrowth.
* Serious impediments to private conservation measures, including tax distortions and regulatory barriers to efficient farm management.
* The imposition on landowners of the cost of wider conservation goals demanded by society.

The Productivity Commission's report deals only with native vegetation and
biodiversity issues. However, many of its findings are relevant to environmental law and policy generally. There are also other fundamental issues that call for investigation.

To read the full paper Click Here

Back to Agmates News Page

Back to Top

Back to Latest Article

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

NATIONAL PARTY TAKES UP DISSIDENT FARMERS FIGHT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:02:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

Kevin Humphries National Party Member for Barwon. MLA Kevin Humphries is a rare breed of a politician. A man that sees injustice and will fight it, a National party MP willing to stand up and fight for Farmers.

NSW National Party MP Kevin Humphries is spearheading a drive to have the National party State and Federal fight for farmers property rights.

Agmates has just received this email from Alastair McRobert, dissident Cobar farmer and member of CPPA:

____________________________________________________
From: "Alastair McRobert"
To: "'Steve Truman'" Agmates
Subject: CPPA media release and Follow up.
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 19:20:37 +1000

Hi Steve

Barnaby has a mate, another politician willing to stand up for the people and what Australia stands for, Kevin is our local State Nationals MP, have spoken to him tonight again, he has been on the blower all day between golf shots playing in a charity golf day, his letter has wiped up a frenzy both State and Federal.

He said for Agmates to publish it and send it far and wide and he will back every word, his plan is to push at the highest level and has already got response. I reiterated to kev again tonight that the line in the sand is a Grand Canyon and there will be no compromise to our position as set out in letter to Koperberg, he appreciated that, as you will see in his letter.

Alastair

_________________________________________________________

In this weekends issue of Agmates read:

1. Letter to Koperberg from Member for Barwon Kevin Humphries
2. Readers Comments:
3. Part 3 Of Professor Suri Ratnapala's paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover" -
ENDOGENOUS THREATS TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

______________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Humphries
To: Alastair McRobert ; Peter McGauran ; Barnaby Joyce
Cc: John Anderson ; tom.chesson@mfacsia.gov.au
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: CPPA media release and Follow up.

Alistair,

I have attached a letter which I have written to Minister Koperberg. Contact with his office indicated they have not received the CPPA letter. I am sending it through today. (Click Here to read CPPA's letter to Koperberg)I want to be able to follow my letter up at both the State and Federal level.

regards,

Kevin Humphries
____________________________________________________

Letter From Kevin Humphries National Party Member for Barwon to The Honorable Phil Koperberg NSW Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.

The Hon Phil Koperberg
Min for Climate Change, Environment and Water
Parliament House
Macquarie St.
Sydney 2000.

5.7.2007
Dear Minister,

Please find attached a copy of the letter from the Commonwealth Property Protection Association.

The letter was posted June 19 0f 2007.

At the conclusion you can see potentially why they believe the door is closed.

As you can see by the tone of the letter the group are angry and have drawn a line in the sand.

I have indicated earlier that the Native Vegetation Laws under the current format do not work – nor are they legitimate in terms of our Constitution. To place in effect a restrictive covenant for whatever reason over some one’s land a demand for recompense would be expected…..

The very purpose of the legislation to avoid environmental vandalism has in effect vandalised both due process and our constitutional principles.

No where in a democratic country does there exist the issuing of a compliance notice by a delegated officer who may then proceed to physically enforce his own order (compliance order) without having to seek judicial determination.

In effect the issue of compliance notifications are both a simultaneous conviction and sentence without trial.

The powers of the authorised officer combine legislative, judicial and executive powers in the one person. This must ring alarm bells with our judges, lawyers, politicians, civil leaders and none the least the general community.

The Commonwealth Property Association is one of a number of groups that are fearful that Australian constitutionalism is in serious trouble.

My experience of the approach used by Government to date regarding the Management of Native Vegetation has compromised due process and procedural fairness for an arbitrary executive style approach. The science in most cases is thin and is offset by a bullying approach.

Farmers and farming communities do have a commitment to conservation. Their voice has been drowned out by decades of unchallenged pontificating by environmental fundamentalists. Public opinion is being driven by alarmist prophets of doom rather than objective and reflective debate about conservation.

Farmers do and will set aside identified areas of high conservation value. Farmers do and will provide stewardship in terms of protecting conservation values.

What farmers are asking for as community expectations are raised in terms of setting aside more land for conservation that “lost opportunity” compensation be integral to the process. The denial of compensation is very damaging to good governance and undermines constitutional principles and the demands that justice prevails.

For Governments of all persuasions to get it right free hold owners must be compensated for lost opportunity. By separating financial responsibility from the privilege of power allows government to seek short term political gains.

Politics and ideology is currently overriding fact, science and the goodwill that has existed in our rural communities of this state.

I am urging the Minister to alter the current course of action and seek to promote a legitimate process in dealing with Land Management Legislation and regulation in NSW.

Yours truly,

Kevin Humphries Barwon MP
______________________________________________________

Agmates Comment-
As the spontaneous Campaign of civil disobedience fans across rural Australia Agmates, CPPA, ABA, and PRA and other Associates Welcomes MP Kevin Humphries & Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce to the fight to win back Property Rights for EVERY Australian Farmer. That includes those farmers and Peak Farmer Associations that ridicule our actions and our cause.
To give your support and help win this historic struggle against the tyranny of the Vegetation management laws email Agmates at steve@agmates.com
You don't have to chop trees to help, there is plenty of other activities to help with, whether it's lobbying your local polly, or just getting all of your neighbours and friends to follow and contribute to the debate on Agmates. There is heaps to do, theres a huge task ahead and you can help.
_______________________________________________________.
2. Comments from Agmates readers over the last 2 days:

Comments on Article - WHY PEAK FARM BODIES - CONDEMN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

NSW FARMERS DAUGHTER BRE said
Dear Steve,
"It seems to me that the National Farmers Federation (NFF), the State Farming Organisations (SFO’s), the State Governments and the Radical Green radical groups do actually have more in common than I first thought.

What they have in common is the use of the words “illegal clearing”. With a quick reference of my own families Fee Simple Title Deeds, it is stated on these deeds that my family own all the native vegetation including the timber, so in fact there is no such thing as “illegal clearing” in the first place. Having said that I will put that to one side.

I would like to expand on the term “illegal clearing” as against “legal clearing” or just “clearing”. One has to wonder how the criminal justice system in Australia can handle what appears to be two different definitions placed upon the single word “clearing”. For example, under the State Government vegetation management acts (VMA’s) clearing can be both legal or illegal, with “legal clearing” being defined as clearing with a permit. The permit being issued to private property owner with the consent and blessing of the “public” that being the Government.

The criminal justice system in Australia which is “codified”, deals only with single definition criminality. For example, the crime of “Murder” can not be defined under two definitions, that being “illegal” and “legal”. In other words “illegal murder” can become “legal murder” if one obtains a permit which is issued using the same prescription and definition for “legal” and “illegal clearing” as specified in the VMA’s. Therefore there is no such thing as “illegal clearing” as the criminal justice system is constitutionally unable to deal with the dual definition.

I am absolutely appalled that the NFF and others would constantly use the term “illegal clearing” when it is clearly a nonsense, and may I suggest that these organisations pull their heads in when referencing this issue. It is little wonder that the Farmers Organisations are in steep decline when they seem to be so inept at representing “The Hand That Feeds Them”."

BEGA FARMER TRACEY BLOMFIELD said
Agmates:
Dear Steve,
"My thoughts exactly - the whole thing. I have 1,100 acres near Bega -beautiful, gorgeous country. I recently went to an information evening about Carbon Credits in Bega, where what you are talking about was not addressed. I became very bristly, and declared that the one group of people who have something that the climate change lobby ACTUALLY NEED is farmers - yet we are living in the dark and treated with scorn for even trying to ask.
As an ex ABC journalist, I find the whole thing is a bit of a fudge. I am a very green organic farmer and want to know where I line up to get the handouts for the sequestrations."

"PETER SPENCER" said
Steve,
"I am just back and note your comments to NSW Farmers EXEC and re Greens International comments - Excellent stuff Steve - If you keep up the work load, you soon will not be sleeping you, will not have enough hours.

The Exec sure came up with some rubbish, they are so disappointing. I wonder which Miles -stones he will bring to your attention - I really do not think he will find any.......unless he is going to try and count the fact that his committee handed on a plate- gave away, our hard fought - 800 years of land rights with a negotiating team that was an embarrassment in its level of competency.

How could you enter a room with out knowing you had no Authority to do- such a thing......They had no idea the SCOPE - the Monumental issue they were dealing with.

As - even a Bank when we borrow against our assets has dozens of pages of documents to sign, witness, file and register - YET the NSW Framers Assoc gave our land away and nothing was signed of agreed it was Crate Blanche - Gratis, unbelievable.....No one even appointed them as our Representatives.

200 years ago their would not have been an act of civil disobedience in protest, instead, they would have all been hung drawn and quartered, for their treachery."

COMMENTS IN GENERAL-

STEVE & JANICEsaid
Agmates:
"My parents are farmers, they love preserving and planting trees....People like you make farmers look like total rednecks - you are a disgrace."

NEW ENGLAND FARMER said
Agmates:
"I read with aghast the amazing claim that farmers chopping trees is like leaving a tap running in a time of water restrictions. This ill advised comment is typical of the short sighted ill informed rhetoric we must endure from our city cousins.
Water to cities comes from dams paid for by tax payers, if they run out it is either because there are not enough dams or people waste the water or both.

We live on a farm and we have two 22000 litre tanks which service our family of 5. We paid for this infrastructure and if we run out of water we buy water at aprox 100 times the price the winging author pays for his water. It would be a different issue if this person had his own water tank and the government confiscated his water.

These people don’t realise that the issue of property rights has nothing per say to do with trees. It is just that the trees happen to be on our farms and the government all of a sudden decides we don’t own them. If a council decided to park all its machinery in this wingers suburban yard would he think it is ok? I suspect not!

All you city folk along with a large proportion of complacent farmers don’t forget that property rights, the right to free speech an, the right to your day in court and the expectation that government will govern within its constitutional limitations effect us all.

It is time to stick together and stand up to bullying governments and puffed up bureaucrats"

ANON SHOCKED AND DISGUSTED said
Agmates:
"As a responsible property owner, I am shocked and disgusted by your actions.It is hard to believe that in this day and age of environmental awareness, you are promoting this kind of stupid protest. If you cannot responsibly care for your land, then I suggest that you find another vocation as you and your cohort obviously do not deserve to have any part of our fine nation to care for. Shame on you, you give farmers and all landholders a bad name. I pity you."

MODERATE GREEN FARMER said
Agmates:
"I would like to suggest that the so-called green fanatics and farmers have similar objectives and that more can be achieved by working together than by slandering each other.

Greens and farmers want sustainable farming practices. Greens want the conservation of biodiversity and the preservation of Australia's remaining native vegetation for future generations. Farmers want productive and profitable farms and can benefit from maintaining remnant vegetation as windbreaks and as protection from salinity and erosion.

The problem seems to be that farmers are being asked to shoulder the burden of preserving native vegetation. This is clearly unfair and unworkable. Farmers should be rewarded for sustainable land management.

The Native Vegetation Act attempts to make both greens and farmers happy with the result that neither is. but we should not be fooled by the government into thinking that only one side can be pleased. The government benefits from the standoff and the environment and farmers suffer.

Many greens are campaigning hard for carbon trading and such a scheme should reward farmers for holding onto native veg. Many greens have fought for better incentives for farmers to encourage sustainable land management practices. And things such as property vegetation plans have mechanisms to provide financial incentives as well as technical support to farmers who agree to protect their native veg. Many greens ARE farmers.

I believe there is more to be gained by uniting against the government and sending a strong and unified message than fighting over the scraps that the government throws to each side in an attempt to placate them.

Cutting down trees illegally is a desperate measure, much like standing in front of a bulldozer. Having stood in front of bulldozers, I can attest to the fact that it doesn't work and it just pisses off the loggers!

Restrictions on a farmer's right to do what s/he wishes with their property is not 'taking a common law right' under the law. All property rights are subject to legislation. And compensating farmers for prohibiting clearing is problematic for many reasons.

But farmers should not be left to shoulder this burden, particularly when all of society benefits from the restriction. That is, i think, the key message. So, why cannot greens and farmers sit down and have a chat and find a common ground? then campaign together to get a good result?

Before you dismiss me as naive, let me say that I have worked with farmers of all ilks and understand their frustrations and challenges, especially with bureaucracy. But i have seen farmers turn their farms into models of sustainability and watched them marvel at the results. Working together can work and i strongly recommend it- to both sides."

The next 3 comments come fromCrikey on an article they did on "The National Chop A Tree Day" - TREES FALL IN FIGHT OVER LAND MANAGEMENT

For those of you that don't know Crikey is a city based Alternative News Digital Media that has 40,000 paid subscribers.

Philip Carman said
Agmates:
"If John Howard is serious about protection of the innocent and stopping harm before it becomes entrenched he should call in the ADF and the AFP to round up Steve Truman and his mates and have them detained. Perhaps he could then chop off a finger for every day that their stupid campaign continues to urge people to break the law by clearing land...?

These Neanderthals are the worst type of criminals because they, too, see themselves as being right when the reality is that they have not the morals, ethics or scruples – let alone enough intelligence – to understand why they are so wrong. I’ll not stay anonymous. And any farmer who doesn’t like it can shove it. But, my sincere thanks to those farmers who are law abiding, intelligent and green enough to know better than to r-pe and pillage their land because they misguidedly think they have "a right" to do so"

Rob Williams said:
Agmates:
"Re. "Trees falling in the fight over land management laws" (yesterday, item 2). The rights of Australians with regards to Freehold Title have been eroded for many years. It is the view of many of us that the Laws curtailing or overrunning Freehold Rights are unconstitutional. The enactment of legislation like that pertaining to land clearing makes a farmer a criminal on his own land. Unfortunately, Australians have long been denied the ability to challenge the Governments, both Federal and State to have their grievances heard by a Supreme Court.
Yes I know the mechanisms are there, but the cost and hurdles in getting to our day in court are hideous and the road to be threaded through the justice system is guarded by magistrates and others who know the ramifications if we win. Democracy in Australia is a hollow word.
Australian farmers are gutted from big business to government. The farmers’ only crime is that they haven't been aggressive enough to challenge those that would see them disappear. I support the farmers, and if the government(s) sees fit to fine them, then I will be in the group who would cheerfully blockade the road to help my fellow man"

Steven McKiernan said
Agmates:
"Agmates said they are chopping one tree on 1 July, two on 2 July and so on. Yet they have chopped 6,000 on day one and 8,000 on day two. Either they have lost a few fingers and cannot keep count without losing the boots, or fewer cockies are firing up the chainsaws or curriculum values in the bush are plummeting. It’s a national emergency, send in the troops!"

SIGNIFICANT COUNTRY FARMER said
Agmates:
"Well, my farm has 40% boxwood forest to 30m high so can I speak with a little experience.
Basically I have more trees than I know what to do with, seedlings everywhere, native box, bark and some gum amongst my livestock over 1,500HA of rough country which provides a but a trace of the income it used to in my Father's day, say in the 60's ~ 80's even with just two people left doing all the work and the same number of dependant animals it ever had in a sustainable, organic system.

To avoid turning the place into housing with subdivision I need to have the rights to Carbon, this is fraud and I am very angry because at my age it's time to consider going, that is without the option to alternative income.

If this works 'anonymous' there will be much more forest, so don't worry you are on the wrong track antagonising the few people who provide the satiety we all know from a full stomach.

One day that may not be possible, remember it only takes three hours to become hungry, unless you want to eat Chinese produce flown in from forced labour camps by air liners and all the carbon consequences of that ridiculous trade.

Of course Treasurer Costello summed up Rural Australia on Radio National Breakfast the day after the Budget,
Fran. “and the drought, what did that cost the economy?”
Costello. “oh, only 1½% downturn in the G.D.P”
Says it all really for the significance of country people when a leader speaks like that."

FINALLY
VIC FARMER said
Agmates:
"I have just been reading through the Agmates site. Very interesting with the amount of work and research done astounding particularly in the Carbon Credit area. However what stuck out like the perverbial is the bit that you've touched on,about how the NSW State Government has enabled the VMA laws that have removed certain rights of farmers in the area of the "Presumption of Innocence" amongst other things for offences committed under these laws.

The removal of these "Lawful" rights under these types of laws is nothing new, for example, they are also found in the states OH & S laws where they remove just about all your judicial rights, including the right of "appeal" and the "Presumption of Innocence".

I have noticed that you have not yet put a name to what this is called, when they remove such rights. WELL, it just so happens that I have done a fair bit of research on this issue. The inclusion of these "Clauses" into laws that remove these rights is called, wait for it:- "Privative Clauses".

The High Court of Australia has already BANNED the "Commonwealth" from using 'Privative Clauses' as unconstitutional however, they have, to a certain extent tolerated the States using them but, are viewed by the judiciary with great deal of suspicion."

_______________________________________________________

PART 3 of Professor Ratnapala's paper -

ENDOGENOUS THREATS TO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

In countries where constitutional government lacks deep roots, liberty is fragile, and vulnerable to the ambitions of individuals and groups who seek by violent means the rewards of absolute power. In established liberal democracies such as Australia, the prospect of forcible overthrow of the constitutional order is remote. However, the freedoms that liberal democracy provides have a tendency to generate endogenous anti-liberal forces.

Freedom allows all manner of ideas, projects and movements to grow, including those inimical to freedom. Unless resisted, they can gradually debilitate constitutional
government to the point of irreversible decline. The paradox of free societies is that they cannot defend themselves by denying basic freedom to its enemies.

Liberal democracies face two common kinds of internal threat to constitutional government. The first arises from welfare politics. Under current electoral systems, special interest groups seek, and political aspirants offer, benefits that very often can be delivered only at some cost to constitutional government. Apart from direct wealth transfers through the tax system, governments pursue distributional goals through various forms of regulation, such as fair trading and consumer protection laws, competition laws, wage and price fixing, and the myriad licensing schemes.
These regulatory devices confer wide discretionary power on officials that seriously derogate from the ideal of government under known and general law that lies at the heart of constitutionalism. This kind of threat, though serious, is manageable, as it is possible to convince people that the short term gains they seek cause more
harm than good in the longer term. The worldwide trend to economic liberalization started by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas, and now driven also by the forces unleashed by liberalized world markets, is evidence of this reversal.

The more serious threat to constitutional government arises from fundamentalism of various kinds. I do not mean, by fundamentalism, deep conviction about a particular worldview, philosophy or faith, whether that be Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or secularist. I employ the term "fundamentalist" to describe a person who not only has an unshakeable conviction in the rightness of his position, but also thinks that his view is so compelling and uncontestable that any competing view must be silenced, if not by persuasion, then by subtle coercion or brute force.

I learnt liberalism and the value of the rule of law very early in my life from a man who had not read any of the great liberal philosophers. He dedicated a major part of his life to the study and practice of the Buddhist doctrine that he embraced without reservation. He devoted another part of his life to politics, in defence of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms for all persons, particularly the freedom to practice other faiths and cultures. He was not a fundamentalist in my lexicon.

The 13th Century churchmen who ordered and carried out the Inquisition were
fundamentalists. The Marxists who pursued the goal of the Communist utopia at the cost of lives and liberties of many millions were fundamentalists. The Fascists who, following Hegel, deified the state as the ultimate good, were fundamentalists. The Al Qaeda terrorist group, and similar groups who wage holy war against infidels, are
fundamentalists.

There is a new fundamentalism that threatens the liberal constitutional order. It is Green fundamentalism. I do not mean by Green fundamentalism, genuine concern about the environment, and the desire to seek rational, balanced and scientifically sound solutions to environmental problems. Rather I refer to the growing intellectual movement that espouses a particular vision of the natural world, and relentlessly pursues the realization of that vision by legal and illegal means, where necessary by overriding the most fundamental rights and liberties of the citizen.

It is vocal in the advocacy of its point of view and insensible to other views. It has been spectacularly successful in elevating its message to the position of a faith that others may not question without being branded anti-social. It has skewed public discussions in a way that has stifled opposing views.

I am not suggesting that the issues that environmentalists raise are trivial. This debate is not about the need to protect the environment, but about rational responses to the problems. It is estimated, for example, that the total cost of global warming could be as much as US$ 5 trillion. Yet, as Bjorn Lomborg in his much reviled but unrebutted book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, points out, some of the solutions suggested could cost the world trillions, and even tens of trillions, of dollars over and above the global warming cost.5 This is money that, in the form of investment, could raise billions of people out of poverty and drive their societies to levels of prosperity that make environmental improvements affordable.

Lomborg is no libertarian capitalist ideologue. He is a left leaning statistician whose thesis is uncompromisingly grounded in data that even WWF, Greenpeace and the Worldwatch Institute largely accept. When he speaks of the bias in the environmental debate, it is worth listening. He asks why global warming is not discussed with an open attitude but with a fervor befitting preachers. He thinks that the answer is "that global warming is not just a question of choosing the optimal economic path for humanity, but has much deeper, political roots as to the kind of future society we would like".6 I cannot but agree.

Click HERE to read Professor Ratnapal's full paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover"
______________________________________________________
COMMENTS PLEASE:

Click HERE to back to Agmates News page

Click HERE to go to TOP

Click Here to go to latest published article

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers.

Why Peak Farmer Bodies - Condemns "Chop" Civil Disobedience

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:24:00 +0000

G'ady Agmates,

Opposite is a photo of Jock Laurie, president of the NSW Farmers Association.

I have received an Email from one of their associations executive members. We will not publish his name, because Agmates appreciates his input and we do not want to embarrass him or bring down ridicule from his fellow executives. This email was not from Jock Laurie.

Agmates will reply to each of his comments but first let me make this clear:

Even though Agmates have and do maul the NSWFA and other farmer bodies, I’m (Agmates) am not anti these organizations.
We firmly believe that the farm sector cannot survive in this day and age without STRONG representation. Here’s the point – I get feedback all of the time from Australian farmers who feel that the Peak bodies have let them down particularly on the Vegetation Management Act issues.
The groups who’s views we publish did not exist a decade ago. The have sprung up and are populated by farmers who feel isolated that Peak body groups have let them down.We believe in publishing a balanced view on Agmates (hence I publish the Fundamentalist green comments).

Agmates don’t publish anything that is off colour, racists or discriminatory and try to source my comments to researched material.

But Agmates can be controversial, but we are 100% Pro Australian farmers. We will do whatever it takes to help farmers win back their private property rights. Agmates would gladly work with NSWFA to achieve this end, but we rarely if ever hear from them.

Now to the email:

From: NSWFA EXEC [mailto: nswexec@nswfarmers.org.au]
Sent: 05/07/2007 11:08 AM
To: Agmates
Subject: RE: Tree Chop Campaign - Globally Significant

Agmates:

NSWFA EXEC: "The governments are run by whoever elects them in, basically the city voters. City voters are heavily influenced by environment concerns amongst other more mundane issues such as paying off a mortgage or the rent. Greens lobbyists have been very successful getting political ears. Farm lobby groups have been in the main reactionary to green politics."

Agmates: "All true – BUT the feedback Agmates get on our website suggest that regardless of what you do you’ll never win over the Fundamentalism Green Brigade – they’ll tolerate you as long as they call the shoots all the while using their perceived political clout to screw farmers through legislation".

Jennifer Marohasy made a great comment on her blog today that is telling –
“Not so many years ago environmental activists rather than farmers would have been more inclined to break the law. Now it is once law abiding farmers who feel so aggrieved they have resorted to civil disobedience”

Why are the NSWFA worried about voter perception? You are not trying to win political office. You’ll never get the Pollies attention unless you draw voters attention by any means possible to bad legislation. Pandering to the greens is not the answer."

NSWFA EXEC - "Whether we like it or not groups like the wilderness society and their spokesmen have political sway and they will say what ever they deem expedient. To suggest they have any direct control over the NSW Farmers Association is ludicrous and offensive."

Agmates - "Is it? – NSWFA seem so hell bent on avoiding WWF’s Roth. Why are you worried, they have the most draconian piece of legislation (the VMA’s) in place ruining the lives and livelihoods of 1,000’s of farmers across Australia. You’ll never appease the Green Fundamentalist. Trying to do so is like trying to appease a militant Islamic fundamentalist, it’s impossible they just want to see the end of western Culture nothing less and nothing logic, education or reason can change this.
The Green Fundamentalist won’t be happy until they see the end of private land ownership, the end of farming, the whole country cover in scrub. So don’t waste your time. They are a small minority who have swayed public opinion. Ten years ago they were a small band of radical extremists largely ignored by mainstream media and politicians. Now they are a small band of radical extremists who through clever manipulation of public perception and politicians have become all powerful. They didn't get where they got today through pandering to farmers".

NSWFA EXEC: "If you think that this tree chopping campaign is going to be beneficial to farmers you are seriously deluded. Other than blowing off a bit of well deserved frustration and anger over ridiculous native Veg legislation and resulting negative environmental, personal and financial impacts, nothing positive will be achieved."

Agmates: - "the recent admissions by Federal treasurer Peter Costello on ABC 7.30 report that it was the Federal Coalition Government that Stopped Land Clearing so the Australian Government could meet it’s Kyoto Target has sparked this uprising. These farmers suffering under the Vegetation management Regimes are furious at the deception and the lies. No Australian let alone a land holder city or country is going to give up his land to the state without a fight.

For 10 years governments Federal and State and the peak Farmer bodies have conned farmers that the draconian Vegetation Management Acts legislated in each state where there because of community demands for them to protect our environment.
It is now clear that they were put in place to turn rural Australia into a huge carbon sink, owned and controlled by the Government to allow them to use the 74million tonnes of Carbon emission savings up to October 2006 to offset the unabated growth in the energy sector.

The above is well documented on Agmates web site and in Dr Clive Hamilton’s recent book – Scorcher The dirty politics of climate change.

There is genuine shock and anger in the Australian farming community over this enormous deception. As in all great democracies, when governments abuse their power and the court system fails its citizens then the next stage in any great democracy is a spontaneous uprising of civil disobedience to bring the democracy back in equilibrium. That’s the nature of all strong democracy’s i.e. Gandhi March to the sea to collect salt etc."

NSWFA EXEC: "Much hard work has been and continues to be done by the NSWFA and others to move the politicians to see farmers as good environment custodians as well as important economically and socially. We have achieved some mile stones and winning the all important public perceptions campaign and frankly we need the negative city press from these protest actions like a hole in the head."

Agmates: Agmates publicly invite the NSWFA to tell Agmates readers just what these milestones are in regards to The NSW Native Vegetation Act. All I can see on my score card is Green Lobby 10 – NSW farmers 0)

NSW EXEC - "Make protest by all means get the message out that the native Veg laws are wrong but do it in away that brings the city voters with you not against you.

Agmates - Again let me remind you that The Native Vegetation Laws in each State of Australia are the most Draconian pieces of Legislation ever introduced in Australia. They are driving good farmers off good farms right now. So what is the NSWFA plan, get the public to love farmers then they will be so “offended” that the executive government has stolen their property rights that they will demand that the ruling party gives them back?
It’s a plan, but the chances of it working are almost zero. The Indians were great servants to the British Colonist and they Colonist loved them as servants, but when they would not pay the salt tax they threw them in jail. It was not till they were civilly disobedient that the Indians won back their property rights."

NSWFA EXEC: "Personally I am out raged by the way farmers have been treated by various governments at times, but we need to be smart about addressing these wrongs. The NSWFA is run by farmers for farmers make no mistake. That is why I am a member of NSW Farmers and proud to represent as an executive councilor."

Agmates: I agree with everything that you just said. Being smart is showing leadership, farmers are suffering under the VMA's - Any person or organization who is willing to stand up and fight, show leadership on behalf of Australian farmers has Agmates full support."

NSWFA EXEC: "But I suspect this simple answer to you extravagant claims will not interest you."

Agmates: "Well your mistaken. But Agmates would like to go through the list of Agmates “Extravagant claims" with you. Please email them to me and I will be happy to substantiate each and every one, If I can’t I’ll happily apologise and print a full retraction. I and the Agmates readers await your and NSWFA response."

End of Discussion:
Postscript:
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.

Tree Chop Campaign- Globally Significant

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:13:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

National chop a tree day goes into day 5. Today up to 10,000 trees will die as an estimated 2,000 farmers chop down 5 trees each in an escalating campaign of civil disobedience.

In one of our comments today Brent from QLD tells us that The National Chop A Tree Day is a revolutionary protest and in fact globally significant because many fellow farmers and indeed property owners across the western world face similar bureaucratic takeovers brought about by the rapidly unfolding globalisation process.

We also have comments from Farmers in WA and QLD explaining they have similar axes to grind with sate legislation.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald The Total Environment Centre, which comprises a number of environment groups, described the alleged tree-chopping actions as self-destructive and urged the NSW government not to give in to environmental vandalism and blackmail.

The groups said they would demand even stronger tree protection laws as a result of these alleged actions. The Centres director Mr Geoff Angel was quick to remind NSW and Queensland governments both had promised to enforce and retain the laws at recent state elections and the groups expected them to do just that.

The Total Environment Centre was very critical of NSW Minister Koperbergs comments on ABC Radio's AM program yesterday 3-07-2007 when he said he would prefer to talk with the organisers (of the Chop day) in preference to taking strong legal action.

It is interesting to note that after this article appeared in today's (4-07-2007) SMH media sources advised Agmates that when they contacted the NSW Minister for the Environments Office, the minister had appeared to toughen his stance on how the tree chopping farmers would be dealt with.

Below we have a comment come in today from a Western Australian Farmer that is very instructive as to how the issues are impacting in every state of Australia. The last paragraph in particular is exactly what has occurred in the above scenario with the Green lobby and Minister Koperberg.

GLENN A WA FARMER said:
Agmates:
"The chop a tree campaign currently underway is no doubt born out of frustration and anger of bad legislation and more impossible regulation. We have the same issues here in WA. This type of legislation has to be interpreted, implemented and then we as law have to be seen to comply with it.

The interpretation, implementation and enforcement of WA's poor environmental legislation is counter productive for successful farm production and environmental improvement. The environmental laws here in WA are almost impossible to comply with.

In WA the environmental legislation has changed the way our property rights are dealt with.From what I've read on Agmates it appears this is the case in every state of Australia.

Farmers in Wa generally have never been better educated and never more aware of soil condition and environmental improvement before. Our fore fathers on the land were expert bushmen and knew far more than the suddenly enlightened loopys that are driving environmental legislation.

Parallel to this is the erosion of property rights, there is no protection under State and territory constitutions when environmental legislation is introduced that amounts to a takings of land and water use. Remember, property rights are human rights, our Australian Constitution does have protection under section S51xxx1.

Our cities are the largest beneficiaries of our productive efforts and the most intensive users of land. It is ironic that it is city based green fundamentalist making political deals with populist governments to enact legislation that will eventually drive good farmers, on good land off the land."

Today Agmates has been "flooded" with comments from obviously radical Green fundamentalist comments which are so off the wall that we aren't worth publishing. here is one of the printable ones to demonstrate to readers just how much these people hate farmers.

STUART IN SYDNEY said:
Agmates:
"Hi there redneck Neanderthals. Typically we see farmers, the great destroyers of our environment, showing Australia just what they think about tress. I’m sure you’d like a landscape denuded of all vegetation except for genetically modified crops.

This action just confirms for me and thousands of other city dwellers that farmers are not capable of caring for our land and in fact rejoice in its destruction and degradation. I bet you celebrated after John Hudson destroyed 700 hectares of irreplaceable wetlands on Yarrol Station. That mentality is what tells me that farmers don’t a toss about the environment and have no understanding of modern land management procedures. You just want to keep farming like we live in England, as no doubt your families “have done for generations” as you are all so fond of telling us.

So what about responsibility for salinity, helping to kill the great barrier reef through fertiliser runoff, producing crops like cotton and rice that have place in this country, and stealing water from wetlands.

What I see in these photo’s is a vandal at work on a tree, not “woody weed” as you have so conveniently labelled it.

Still, I can’t see you rural dwellers ever caring at all about the environment. All you’ve ever cared about is the continuation of Agrarian Sociaism where you can socialise your losses and capitalise your profits all provided for by Australian tax payers. You are not a protected species, you are in business – but of course you see yourselves in terms of some mythology of the “outback” which of course is total BS, but it suits you to trot it out and claim you need special treatment.

If I ever had any sympathy for farmers, it’s gone totally now. I hope they fine and gaol the lot of you."

Agmates comment: Stuart thank you for your comment even though it is full of exaggerations and untruths. Face it Stuart, your a green fundamentalist - you hate farmers, just as Islamic fundamentalist hate westerners and Nazis (Fundamentalists) hate Jews, no amount of logic, reason of fact is going to change your beliefs.

Our next comment is from Julliete.
JULLIETE said:
Agmates:
"I think this is a terribly misguided action. It will only confirm the opinions of those who believe that farmers are not fit to be in charge of the environment. Please give more thought to this damaging campaign; you are only preaching to the converted. Those of us who wish only good to farmers are dismayed and unable to support this."

Agmates Comment: Thanks for your comment Julliete and welcome to the debate. We do hope you have read Professor Ratnapalas paper "Constitutional vandalism Under Green cover" so you know why farmers are doing this.
The farmers chopping down trees are trying to bring to reasonable Australians (like yourself) attention how they are being suppressed by unfair, unworkable and unaustralian vegetation management Legislation's in each state. This legislation is forcing farmers off their land and wrecking the environment. Please keep reading to gain enlightenment as to how and why this great injustice has been perpetrated and allowed to happen.

BRENT FROM QLD said:
Agmates:
"The tree chop is a revolutionary protest, a drastic but necessary action by farmers across Australia to reclaim their common law property rights from tyrannical bureaucracy and its corporate bedmates.
When I was editor of the Swan Hill Guardian and North West Farmer Victoria) back in 1996-98 I ran a number of articles raising the alarm over the green land grab run by the World Wildlife Fund, ACF and others in cahoots with government departments. However, I have learned a lot more about property rights since then, thanks to the internet.
In fact this protest is globally significant because many fellow farmers and indeed property owners across the western world face similar bureaucratic takeovers brought about by the rapidly unfolding globalisation process. Can I recommend two on-line US radio stations - gcnlive.com and rbnlive.com - that bring much relevant information in this fight against the forces of unchecked corporate bureaucracies."

ALEX DAVIDSON said:
Agmates:
"Peter Spencer is on the right track with his analogy about someone taking 3/4 of your house and property.

Imagine buying a 4 bedroom home, then one day the government comes along and tells you to stop using 3 of your bedrooms. They tell you it's "in the public interest" because there are homeless people wandering the streets who need somewhere to sleep.

Not only do you no longer have the use of those bedrooms for say, your children, but when you come to sell, you’re faced with selling it as a 1 bedroom house that provides free accommodation for the homeless, instead of a private 4 bedroom home.

No-one would accept that without a fight.

Yet this is precisely what is happening to owners of freehold land affected by the native vegetation legislation. They are being forced to give up an activity which produces income – primary production – and instead engage in an activity which produces no income – carbon sinking. This is the type of stuff we used to read about happening in communist Russia or China. It completely undermines and overrides the concept of private ownership, and has no place in a country founded on principles of freedom and justice.

Those who piously suggest that landholders should reason with the government are being patronising or foolish or both. Thanks to the enormous tax revenues they help themselves to each year, governments have now become so powerful that they are no longer our servants, but our masters, expecting us to meekly obey every edict they issue, no matter how unjust or how insidiously it undermines our freedom. They no longer listen to reason, but to might – the might of popular opinion informed only by talkback radio or the popular media, or the might of money. Principles and justice mean nothing to them.

It is long past time for us to reclaim ownership over our own lives and property. That includes trees."

ONE TIME FEE SIMPLE OWNER IN QLD said
Agmates,
"You are only scratching the surface of the problem of removal of land rights in Australia. The Qld government has assumed sovereign control of all land in Queensland. They can register an interest in any title in Qld, city and country alike.
If and when they do this, the "owner" will have a piece of property you cannot sell, develop or do anything with(without government approval to do so).
While the high court of Australia has ruled in several cases that the Qld government cannot assume sovereignty, the Qld government thumbs its nose at the High Court. The Federal Government should be ashamed for not instituting legislation to protect Fee Simple rights.
You have my full support Agmates. The other labour states progress down the same
track as Qld while the National and Liberal government sit back and do nothing!!
This action reminds me of the suffragettes risking imprisonment and worse, to just achieve voting rights.
For the rest of Australia that think chopping down trees is not acceptable, please sit back and wait until your Fee Simple property is controlled totally by Government bureaucrats who have no concern about whether your property is worth what it was or not, or whether it is sustainable. I encourage you to be apathetic and loose you rights to the land and houses you have sweated your guts out to own. For those that don't believe me check with your legal representatives and ask them what Statutory Fee Simple is in Qld and what the difference is between this and Fee Simple.
Once you have confirmation it will be much easier for you to decide how to vote at the next Federal election."

FARMER JOHN FROM NSW said
Agmates:
"As a landowner I'm reluctant to condone tree chopping to get a point across to the Governments.
However I also understand Governments in Australia believe they must control everything, and the power they have "assumed", becomes all consuming in their lives, to control the remainder of the population. To achieve this control, they select committees to formulate policy using individuals and organisations that Governments know will support their views and ideals. Anyone else with a different and usually independent view point are sidelined to expidite Government desires for power and
control of the populus.
Then this is called "wide consultation" and "community concern" even when no representative community concern exists.
Examples of supposed independent organisations include Natural Resources Management Groups, Meat and Livestock Australia, Cattle Council and all the associated peak industry bodies, funded from our taxes and levies. as a result of their funding streams they have no alternative but to support the policies of the government of the day!
We as individual landowners/producers have no control even we are told we have control.
Realistically I would like to have some trees/scrub retained on my property and have the property viable so that I can preserve some of the native vegetation that exists there. However I can only control the weeds in the non-productive scrub if the remainder of the property is viable. One would have thought that the community would want this to happen.
In reality it isn't this way. Increasing government regulation of water, operating systems, addition levies to support Government bureaucracy destroys the profitability and destroys the residual bush as a result, because the farmer can no longer afford to maintain the native vegetation without weeds etc.etc. We all know there is a weed crisis in Australia and it will consume the residual bush unless Governments start working with farmers instead of trying to beat them into submission.
The Community and Government need to wake up to the fact that, if they want native vegetation they should think about carbon credits for residual bush and financial support for this "bush", without the draconian regulations, so that the residual bush can be preserved.
To expect farmers to sign over blocks of scrub to Heritage listing without
compensation is unrealistic at best".

CONCERNED URBAN HOME OWNER said
Agmates:
"Iam looking at the Farmers fight against the Native Vegetation Laws and the State Government via the Green movement from a “City Slickers” point of view. Following the story has been hard work for me but I think that I’m getting my head around the issues that “Chop a Tree” has stirred up particularly amongst what would seem to be mostly urban and city people, most of whom have probably never left their suburb. Unfortunately I fall into that category however; I have made plans at times to travel outside my “square” but have never fulfilled this ambition.

Correct me if I am wrong but could you answer the following points, as I see it, which seem to have stirred up such a storm.

1. That the State Government, through the Green lobbyists, has made laws that effectively remove the farmer’s ability to provide the food and fibre that all peoples need to survive? The environmental movement is a noble cause but surely producing food and clothes for all of us is also a noble cause, without which we would all surely perish!

2. We were brought up to believe that Australia was a common law country. The farmers make reference that Australia may be now not a common law country, is this true?

3. If it is true, that we are now not a common law country, aren’t we supposed to have a “Bill of Rights” or a new Constitution or something that takes the place of common law?

4. Don’t the Governments have to have a referendum or something to find out if we wanted common law to be removed and not replaced?

5. The farmers are claiming that the land that they purchased is their private property and is the same as anything that is purchased and then becomes the possession of the purchaser, is this true? I would have assumed that this is indeed true otherwise nobody could own anything.

6. Are the farmers saying that by default the Government through the Native Vegetation Laws have claimed some sort of ownership to the land that the farmers have purchased?

7. If the answer to 6 is yes, has the Government paid the farmers or entered into any agreements with the farmers for this ownership that would enable co-ownership of the land?

8. By the introduction of these laws, does this now mean that the Government can claim ownership of all the land in NSW simply by introducing whatever laws they like?

9. If the answer to 8 is yes; has anyone thought to inform the banks and other lending institutions that lend money to land owners and home owners so they can buy their first homes or land in general that the State Government is actually the legal owner of the land or home and not the person who signed the mortgage agreement?

10. Could this affect City and regional land and house values if the banks indeed did become aware and nervous about who actually owned the house and land?

11. If the Government can bring in laws of this nature is it possible that they could bring in laws that forced me, with my quarter acre block and modest home, to demolish my home if it was found that it did not meet some environmental law or any other law that they can think of?

12. Could the Government bring in laws that forced me to take in borders, refugees or anybody else and that I would have to feed and cloth them without payment?

13. If it is indeed possible for the State Government to make whatever laws they like, who or what is protecting society from the Government, given that history has shown that Governments of all descriptions are continually trying to control society by whatever means possible?

These are just some of my questions that have come to mind while observing this debate. As a house and land owner myself and an “Armchair” Green I am deeply disturbed that a lot of these questions and issues that the farmers have raised have not been put to the public and debated or for the Greens to explain because hell will freeze over before I would let any of the above become true".

JOHN CORDINGLEY said
Agmates:
"I have a question for you. If the government owns all our trees the carbon is still locked up when they are pushed into a windrow, should the government be asked to remove the dead timber from our properties?"

Agmates Comment: John I think if the Govt had it's way they'd own it but want you to leave it on your land at your expense. But if you burn the windrows you are emitting carbon into the atmosphere and they'd want you to pay for it. I think?

Click Here to go to Agmates News Page

Click Here to go to the most recent published Article.

Click Here to read Head Line Story on Crikey.com 04-07-2007

We'll publish Part 3 of Professor ratnapala's paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover" tomorrow.

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers.

8,000 trees will die today!

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:51:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

Before we start I'll like publicly to say goodbye to a great little guy who passed away today. It really is a sad thing when you lose a great mate. We love you Yoda Manton. Goodbye Yodi.

Choke back the tears and down to business.

Well it's day three of the "National Chop A Tree day" and Agmates estimates that up to 6,000 tree's in QLD, NSW, VIC and SA Died today. Today it will be a further 8,000?

What was interesting was that NSW Minister for Climate Change and the Environment Phil Koperberg when interviewed on ABC's AM radio program this morning about the "Chop" civil disobedience told listeners that he would not take "a big stick" approach to farmers involved in the "Chop" action in NSW.

This is a new side to the minister dubbed "The Face of Evil" (the evil is the NSW Vegetation Management Act) after he ordered his departments goons to conduct what farmers have dubbed a "jackboot farm Invasion" of the Hudsons property at Moree.

Click here to read how the Hudson's have been treated by the Minister. Their property is unrestricted freehold, zoned by the local council for cropping and had the proper CMA plans in place for cleaning up an invasive weed called Lipia that had overrun the property (Lipia is a Lignum type invasive woody weed that grows 2-3 metres high and chokes out all other plant life and wrecks the entire biodiversity of the area).

The Hudsons maintain they did the clearing to those plans. Yet after WWF's Reece Turner conned ABC Television into believing that the clearing was done on Ramsar Heritage Listed Wetlands the Minister has ordered them to remove all livestock and vehicles off their property and threatened them with a 1 million dollar fine if they can't prove their innocence within 12 months).

Agmates can confirm that some of the groups members are currently taking legal advice with regard to suing Mr Turner for millions of dollars in damages for the "unmitigated damage" his deceptive and dishonest actions have caused to the rural industry.

Minister Koperberg also said that his door is always open 'to talk' to farmers about their issues. Is this really the case. Agmates knows that up to now despite attempts by CPPA to open a dialogue with Mr Koperberg and his office he has ignored them.

If Minister Koperbergs "door was always open" 10-12,000 trees may not be lying dead around Australia with the number growing each day. Only the minister has the ability to stop this carnage on trees in NSW, he either has to do it with dialogue or by "using a big stick", which one is it to be?

Now onto todays comments then onto Part 2 of Suri Ratnapals paper "Constitutional Vandalism Under Green Cover"

YOUR COMMENTS:

ANON CHARMER said
Agmates:
"i think that all members of agmates would be better off chopping thier own heads off , what a stupid lot they are , do they also think the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese , and i not a city folk but a green farmer who nurtures his land not rapes it !"

Note from Agmates: "Mate if your a farmer I'm George Bush. Agmates encourages intelligent and informed comment, but my friend you are neither".

PETER SPENCER said
Agmates
"Lets get to the point here - if persons came onto your land and took the use of 3/4 of your house and property, destroying your business and livelihood in the process, but left you with the mortgages and devalued asset debt at the bank, would you not feel utterly dismayed.
But that is not where it stopped. To add salt in the open wound, after years of pleading for help in a civilised way and not being heard, would you not say this was an unreasonable way for civilised society to treat you. Aboriginals know all about this and so do farmers.
The true depth of the moral depravity and utter confusion in this Nation - Australia, can be measured in today’s call by the Greens Kerry Nettle in a typical display of his parties hypocrisy, demanding the Australian Government pay compensation to those 247 persons illegally imprisoned.
YET the Green movement actively said NO to compensation when their sponsored legislation - the Native Vegetation Act destroyed the lives of over 30,000 farming families across Australia. It is selective morality - how privileged, how pathetic.!
The Greens as with most Politicians do not understand morality. They understand Media grandstanding. The Media cannot even see they are being used.
We Australians, members of the electorate, sons and daughters of Anzacs are apparently of no value, when outsiders get total privilege, help and compassion, and yet we the inheritors by birth of Australian protection, Australian rights, Australian Constitution, GET absolutely NO consideration at all.
We have, as a Nation lost the plot.
The media appear totally oblivious to the reason of the National Chop concept and even though it is in progress, they are more interested in a picture/photo of it happening then the injustice it is highlighting.
The Media’s totally apathy is so institutionalised they cannot see the forest for the trees."

PETER GARGAN said
Agmates:
"What you are doing is what Ghandi did to free India from British Rule. The British would not allow salt to be sold to the Indians, unless they paid a tax on it, and Ghandi, in a monumental act of civil disobedience, that rallied the Nation marched to the sea to take from god, what man had forbidden.

What we are fighting is government by lawyers, who tell us it is illegal to make a tree into firewood, and then sell that firewood, but not illegal to mine coal and sell it to the world. Bring on Gilbert and Sullivan. They would make a great Light Opera on this one. Chop Chop. ( The Mikado and Pooh Bah) You can take the boy from the farm, but you can never get the farm out of the boy."

PART 2 OF SURI RATNAPALA'S PAPER

What is a Constitution and what is constitutional government?

Agmates Notes -Part 2 is really just background information as a foundation, but it is useful for all to understand for the rest of the series and further discussion.

Constitutional government, or government under law, is a remarkable achievement of modern civilization, but it has been gained at a great price. Constitutional government enthrones the rule of law in the sense of the supremacy of known, general and impersonal laws over rulers and subjects alike.

Millions of people around the world have died in the establishment and defence of constitutional government. This is not an exaggeration when the human cost of the 17th Century constitutional struggles in England, the American Revolution, the Civil War, the two World Wars, the uprisings against Fascist and Communist rule, and present day democracy movements are accounted. Constitutional government is hard to win but not so hard to lose. It is always under pressure from seen and unseen opponents.

The term "constitution" once was synonymous with constitutional government that meant a particular type of political order in which the authority of rulers,
including their legislative power, was limited through appropriate institutional devices, and both rulers and citizens were subject to the general law of the
land. However, the term is now so debased that the most widely read encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica informs its readers that in its simplest and most neutral sense, every country has a Constitution no matter how badly or erratically it may be governed.
2 A Constitution in this simple sense refers to the official description of the Constitution or the paper Constitution.

There is another, more realistic sense in which the word "constitution" is used. It refers to the constitution as it actually operates. This is the constitution that lives in the experience of the people, that which economists call the "economic constitution". The constitution in this sense deviates from the paper Constitution, sometimes for the better but often for the worse. The Constitution Act of New Zealand reposes absolute power in a single chamber Parliament. Yet New Zealand enjoys a much greater degree of constitutional government than most countries with elaborate written safeguards.

The United Kingdom has a robust democracy and an outstanding record on human rights without a scrap of paper that can be called a Constitution. As against these shining examples, we find many countries failing to secure a semblance of the constitutional order proclaimed in their official constitutional instruments.

There is a third, philosophical, sense in which the term "constitution" is used. It is the classical idea of a constitution, which F A Hayek termed the "constitution of liberty" in his famous work bearing that name.
3 In The Constitution of Liberty Hayek set out to present a restatement of the principles of a free society. This restatement was completed in the three volumes that constitute the monumental intellectual defence of the rule of law and individual freedom, Law Legislation and Liberty.
4 These treatises together explain the logic and the institutional framework of the political order that sustains human freedom.

At the heart of the constitution of liberty is the supremacy of general laws over all authority, public or private. Its modalities include the rejection of
sovereign authority, even of elected assemblies, the effective separation of the executive, judicial and law making powers, and the geographical dispersal of power through federal arrangements. The constitution in this classical sense is a response to a perennial problem in human existence---that of creating power to coordinate collective action to secure essential public goods, while restraining the
repositories of power from abusing it.

The bedrock of the classical idea of a constitution is a particular conception of the rule of law, namely the subordination of all public and private power to
general norms of conduct. It is said that the rule of law is a necessary condition of freedom, but not a sufficient one. This proposition sounds logical, inasmuch as certain laws may diminish the liberty of all while ostensibly remaining faithful to the rule of law ideal.

For example, prohibition of alcohol consumption in some countries limits the choice of everyone. But on reflection it is evident that such laws eventually defeat the rule of law. Unreasonably restrictive laws are likely to be kept in place only by derogation's from the rule of law in other respects. Typically, prohibition laws are maintained by privileging certain religious or moral opinions as against others.

It is also claimed that abhorrent institutions such as apartheid and slavery can be implemented consistently with the rule of law, provided that the disabilities they impose are not the result of arbitrary discretion's of authorities. This claim is much more problematic. In such cases, the legislators themselves are acting arbitrarily in both establishing and maintaining the institutions.

The rule of law's prescription against arbitrary determinations applies equally to the legislature and to constituent bodies. Such laws are general only in a very perverse sense. Thus in countries where there is cultural diversity, the constitutional privileging of particular religions or languages creates serious
problems for the rule of law.

It is true that people's lives are more predictable where discrimination results from pre-announced rules rather than from the momentary will of officials. Much depends on the extent to which the discrimination diminishes the life chances of the selected group. The rule of law is maintained in the longer term not by coercive power but by the people's fidelity to the law. Hence constitutions and laws that pre-ordain selected groups to lasting deprivation are inherently unstable owing to the loss of fidelity of the disadvantaged groups, and can be maintained only by increasingly arbitrary projections of coercive power.

Hence these laws are as subversive of the rule of law, as laws that confer unfettered powers on rulers.
End of Part 2
_______________________________________________________

To read the full article in advance please CLICK HERE

To go back to Agmates News page CLICK HERE

To go to the latest published article Click Here.

Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers.

Farmers Vent Anger at Vegetation Management Laws

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:24:00 +0000

"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.

The Great Vegatation Management Acts Debate begins.

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:19:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

Well the debate is off and running - Click here to read part 1 of 16 of Professor Suri Ratnapala's paper that started the debate.

Let me first give a sample of the comments that made Agmates realize that Country & City folk alike aren't aware of the great issue here, that if you do not have secure Property Rights - you have nothing.

The indigenous community is just discovering this with the Federal Government over riding their Native Title to take back their land...to read why Aboriginals can't trust The PM click here to read a published paper by Peter Spencer Thinker, Author, Farmer and head of Commonwealth Property Rights to see the assurances the PM and Ministers gave farmers, (that turned out to be just lies) just the same as he is now doing to the indigenous community.

Below is a copy of just some of the printable comments that Agmates received in response to or article National chop a Tree day.

Thursday 28th June 2007
Anonymous said...
You greedy monsters make me sick.
We have precious little scrub left and if you had your way there would be none...I hope you get nothing..

Agmates Replied......

Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:56:00 AM EST
Agmates said...
Dear Anonymous,
Your comment that there is very little scrub left tells me that you live in the city. It is based on ignorant opinion, let me give you a couple of facts to consider before you verbal Australian farmers again.
QLD is the second largest state in Australia and in area is 1,852,642 square kilometres. Of that 81% or one and a half million square kilometres is covered in Scrub.
Only 10% of the land in the world is cleared for farming.
The house you live in, the street you drive down the suburb you live in was all once scrub.
All the food you eat my friend is produced off "cleared land". The cotton clothing you wear is produced off cleared land, the milk, eggs, bread and cheese you eat is all produced off cleared land. The wine or beer you drink is produced off cleared land.
So my friend have your way and let all of the scrub grow back - just be prepared to live in a forest as a hunter, gatherer living as the Aboriginals or native American Indians did 200 years ago.
Your hatred of the very people who produce the food you eat and the clothing you wear is curious.
Where does that come from - I'd be interested to know?

Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:13:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...
Bullshit mate, about half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have been felled. Since about the mid 1800s the Earth is experiencing an unprecedented rate of change of destruction of forests worldwide. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining with another ten percent in a degraded condition. 80 percent will have been lost and with them the irreversible loss of hundreds of thousands of species

And another comment, and this one really got me thinking......

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:15:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...
It can take a tree hundreds of years to grow and establish itself in an ecology and in one day you're destroying that. You say you are a farmer or a person fighting for farmers, people of the land, then why harm the land that feeds and supports you?
I beg you, think beyond your self interest to the interest of your children and not your pockets of land. The planet is here to be shared by all, regardless of right or government, so please, don't take part in this childish protest!
I struggle to understand how seemingly well educated businessmen can think that this sort of protest will help them with their cause? All you are doing is making ALOT of people angry and losing their respect. Your "chop a tree" day will not help you...for the sake of your children having trees to climb in and for the sake of our national pride, reconsider your actions or you'll go down in history as one more narrow minded, backwoods hick Australian, just like Pauline Hanson did.
Agmates, you cite many examples of the land "feeding us" various products, but at what cost to the topsoil and native Australian environment? Alot of outdated European farming practices are still all over our land, destroying the topsoil and eroding the small amount of arable land we have here. Please don't cite those examples as justification for destroying even more of our ecology, you look like a hypocrite in my opinion.
I'm no expert, but from the outside looking in, like most of the public, this protest looks driven by self interest at the detriment to the country and environment and you will garner little support and fewer friends by going through with it.
Please reconsider.

Agmates Reply -

Friday, June 29, 2007 1:42:00 PM EST
Agmates said...
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond.

You have to ask yourself why are farmers resorting to cutting down trees as a form of civil disobedience? Because they are redneck, environmental vandals, greedy monsters, infidels who left unchecked will destroy the planet?
Perhaps we should have a Jihad on every Australian farmer.

No they are resorting to "Civil disobedience", because the Vegetation Management Acts in each State of Australia is not only a threat to their lively hoods and way of life but to our (your) very liberal democracy.

Why has this happened? Let me give you both a brief extract of the work of Learned Professor Suri Ratnapala of the University of QLD (UQ)in a paper he wrote (I'll publish this in a full article soon)

"CONSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM UNDER GREEN COVER"
Click on the link the read the full paper which is the core of why farmers are taking this extreme action.

And the reply Agmates got from our anonymous, reasonable and intelligent reader -

Friday, June 29, 2007 7:12:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...
Steve, "Agmates",

The concerns that you quote from that report on how the government are dealing with environmental management seem valid and on that front, I agree. You are not alone of course, how the government regulates mental health, regional services, mens health issues vs female health issues, domestic violence and more recently aboriginal affairs, are done with sweeping generalisations that will be to the detriment of many. Hopefully not the majority, but to many, regardless.
So what are you trying to achieve with your chop a tree day?
You have problems with the way the government is regulating environmental concerns...so you can:
a) highlight your concerns through mass media
b) show clear examples of how the regulations are unfair or...
c) clear old growth, protected trees and get the vast majority of the Australian public angry at farmers....

hmmm...

okok, thats an oversimplification, but as I have stated already, for your own sake, please reconsider your goals and how you are trying to achieve them...this protest will not help you get the public on side It will not make environmental legislation a topic for the next election, and the government will not cave because you chop a few trees...
Bring these poorly provisioned legislation's to the public, woo them to your cause and fight for better policy after the next election. You wont make any friends by cutting down protected trees unless you give more information to the public about what you are trying to achieve, and the mass media are more interested in sensationalising what you are doing than reporting the facts...surprise surprise...

Please, reconsider...This illegal felling of protected trees (as opposed to "civil disobedience" as you put it) will not help the plight of your farmers!

Agmates response
Sunday, July 1, 2007 1:11:00 PM EST

Dear Anonymous -

Thank you for you thoughtful reply. You are right on the money with your comments and here's why:

Anonymous -"Bring these poorly provisioned legislation's to the public,"
Agmates - Exactly what we are trying to do, we want people to know how dangerous this piece of legislation is to ALL AUSTRALIANS not just Farmers, Aboriginals are now just finding out that if Fee Simple does not exist then any other form of title (Native Title) has no security at all.

Anonymous - "woo them to your cause and fight for better policy after the next election".
Agmates - Farmers believe in looking after their environment (their future and families future depends on it), but the Vegetation Management Act's don't achieve that outcome - farmers want them removed and replaced with a sustainable and workable Legislation - BUT we cannot wait until after the election - If Kevin Rudd and his Labour team would come out with a policy to scrap the VMA's and start a fresh he'd get every rural vote in Australia.

Anonymous - "You wont make any friends by cutting down protected trees unless you give more information to the public about what you are trying to achieve",
Agmates - We agree with you 100% - We want to inform the entire population of Australia about how unjust and dangerous the VMA legislation is.

Please stay with us as we discuss Suri Ratnapala's paper "Constitutional Vandalism under Green Cover" over the coming weeks. This paper although not the only paper on the threat of the VMA legislation, it is perhaps the most succinct.

We have 1,000's of farmers across Australia watching this discussion, We are inviting anyone to participate including Professor Ratnapala, The Australian Institutes Dr Clive Hamilton, former CSIRO top scientist Don Burrows, NSW Minister for Climate Change and the Environment Phillip Koperberg, QLD & NSW Premiers Beattie & Iemma, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Labours Shadow Environment Minister Peter Garrett, the indigenous Land Councils Noel Pearson, Aboriginal Housing's Mick Mundine, WWF's Reece Turner and CPPA's Peter Spencer as well as farmers, conservationists and urban dwellers.

Anonymous - "and the mass media are more interested in sensationalising what you are doing than reporting the facts...surprise surprise..."
Agmates - You are spot on the money here. Unfortunately that is how the system works - Unless the mainstream media find something sensational that sells newspapers, they are just not interested. Farmers battle to have the mainstream Rural Media report on their issues. Farmers have been trying for 10 years to get the mainstream media to cover this issue, but they are only interested in reporting the Green side of the argument. The Green lobby is amazingly well funded and resourced.

But now we have this amazing medium of the Internet and true freedom of speech, we no longer can be "stone walled" by the popular press.

Thanks for your contribution and Welcome to the debate

Click here to return to Agmates News Page

Click here to go to the full text of the latest news story
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australin farmers.

Why Farmers are going the big CHOP on July 1.

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:45:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

Opposite is a photo of Professor Suri Ratnapala Professor of Public Law and Director, Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law at University of Queensland.

Recent correspondence to our published articles (see comments under article "National Chop a Tree day")reveal that the majority of people both country and city have no idea why Australian Farmers are resorting to "Chopping down trees" as a form of "Civil disobedience".

Under current Vegetation Management Acts (VMA's) in all States of Australia any person who cuts down a tree is guilty of "Broad Scale Land Clearing". Once charged of this offence under a VMA land holders have less legal rights than someone charged with rape or murder.

So why would 1,000's of farmers take such a risk. Farmers by nature are conservative, private and law abiding citizens. Farmers do not have a history of extreme acts of civil disobedience. So why is this happening?

Agmates will over a series of articles over the next 2 weeks explain why this extreme action is being taken by farmers. We will do this by publishing a 16 part series of extract from a paper written by distinguished Professor Suri Ratnapala titled:

CONSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM UNDER GREEN COVER.

This paper deals with the issues that are at the core of what farmers are agitating for - the complete remove of the Vegetation Management Acts from Australian state Legislation.

The paper deals in detail with the QLD Vegetation Management Act 1999 which as a model now see's is duplicated across Australia with dangerous mutations of it starting to appear i.e. The federal government wanting to take land off the Aboriginals in the Northern territory.

Each day we will publish a chapter in sequence of Professors Ratnapala's paper for online discussion. We invite all parties, farmers, environmentalists, politicians, intellectuals, professionals to comment. Comments can be left anonymously.

Once we have dealt with one issue we'll move onto the next. We have invited a panel of experts from all sides of the issue to comment.

Below is part one of the series. You can read the entire paper in advance by CLICKING HERE.

________________________________________________________

CONSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM UNDER GREEN COVER
A paper by Professor Suri Ratnapala

PART 1

Australia is called the Lucky Country, but luck has played only a small part in the country's success. The conversion of resources into wealth requires capital, technology, enterprise and hard work. People do not invest in wealth creating activity when the risks are too high and the returns too low. Risks increase when the law is unpredictable and property rights are insecure.

The success of Australia's primary industry sector owes much to the relative stability of property rights and contractual certainty secured by what the great Scottish philosopher David Hume called the "three fundamental laws concerning the stability of possessions, translation by consent and the performance of promises".1 These laws are maintained by the strength of the Constitution and the eternal vigilance of the people.

This essay discusses a new threat to constitutional government and property rights in Australia that has arisen out of what is in principle a worthy and necessary program in public policy, namely environmental protection. The threat arises not from the aim itself, but from the flawed processes by which environmental policies and laws are determined and implemented. These processes not only subvert constitutional principles but also admit bad science.

It is impossible to survey within a brief essay the complex and ever growing environmental regulatory regime in Australia. Hence I will focus my attention on one piece of legislation that typifies all that is wrong and dangerous about recent trends in environmental protection law in this country. The legislation I examine is Queensland's Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) which applies to all freehold and non-freehold lands in Queensland. This law reflects a regulatory model that is becoming the standard in Australia.

In searching for an illustrative case of a statute that comprehensively defeats the values of constitutional government, in particular the rule of law, democratic principle and the basic requirements of natural justice, one need look no further than this Act.

I will consider the constitutionality of some aspects of this legislation and the prospects for a successful challenge to its provisions.

Before I discuss the impact of this Act on constitutional government, it is necessary to make some explanatory observations about this form of government and its vulnerabilities.

End of Part 1. To read the rest of the paper in advance CLICK HERE

_______________________________________________________
Comments Invited -
Cheers
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers.

CPPA Legal Team predict - Property Rights case to go to highest courts.

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:54:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

Opposite is Peter Spencer and Distinguished Professor of Law Errol Higgins. Professor Higgins has been in a week long conference with Peter and senior members of the Commonwealth Property Protection Association at Peters property high in the Snowy mountain Alps.

Knowing that there are 1,000's of Australian Farmers across Australia now following these developments with great interest, after extensive reviews of the case Professor Higgins has released this important statement for your information.

Press Release
26th June 2007
Errol Higgins Professor of Law

I have been asked to comment on a matter involving Peter J Spencer v The Attorney Generals of the ACT, NSW and the Commonwealth of Australia. This matter was brought by Mr Spencer because of the very substantial reduction in the value of his large rural property near Cooma, on the hearing date 19th March 2007. Unfortunately before Mr Spencer could present his case, the Lawyers for the defendants sought to have proceedings stuck out.

The presiding Judge decided to listen without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to present his case. As a result none of the substance of Mr Spencer’s case was heard.

The Judge reserved his decision and gave a judgement on the 4th April 2007. This decision did not deal with any matter except whether or not Mr Spencer had the right to proceed.

The court held that the cases against the Commonwealth and New South Wales could not possible succeed and the case against the ACT could in the future proceed, but subject to considerable amendment by the plaintiff.

This was adjourned until late August. The very unfortunate aspect of this matter is that Mr Spencer was given no opportunity to present any aspect of his various claims against the defendant authorities.

He has recently been receiving a great deal of encouragement and support from the Commonwealth Property Protection Association as well as other associations and Landowners. I was recently approached by Mr Spencer, his supporters, and other rural dwellers.

In considering the judgement I have reached the clear conclusion that it was misconceived as to the facts and the law. Indeed there was no real consideration of the facts and the law concerned in the judgement it was minimal and did not deal with any of the fundamental legal matters. Consequently I have advised Mr Spencer he has reasonable grounds for an appeal.

As to the appeal there will obviously be arguments over the facts but there will certainly be detailed legal argument. I am at the moment preparing detailed preliminary submissions in relation to the case. The matter is of such fundamental importance, particularly for rural dwellers and others that it is likely to go to the very highest courts.

In addition this kind of matter would be immensely suitable to a full hearing with a civil trial by jury. For hundreds of years common law (judges decisions) have been a major part of our law. Statute law provided by Parliament, like common law is applied and interpreted by judges. This provides safe guards when there may be unscrupulous politicians.

It is quiet clear that taking into account the whole of the pleadings both in fact and in law, provides ample and sufficient cause of action. Because of the inroads by current administrations there are many people who feel both marginalized and have lost all faith in their political representatives. This is all to do with the fundamental rights provided by fee simple.

Finally, the Commonwealth Parliament is the ultimate voice of the Australian People. State legislature must respect that.

Signed

Errol Higgins
Professor of Law.

_________________________________________________
Cheers,
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

Mark Phelps - What is going on at the Queensland Country Life?

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:43:00 +0000

What is going on at the QCL?

G’day Agmates,

The photo is of Mark Phelps, Editor of The Queensland Country Life.

We really have a question about the editorial standards at the Queensland Country Life.

The QCL and it’s NSW sister paper The Land (both owned by Rural Press) seem polls apart when it comes to covering the really important issues to farmers in each state. Let me show you what I mean.

Last weeks issue of The Land News Paper page 6 ran a full page on just 2 articles. The first by Journalist Alan Dick was a half page
Veg cops ‘invade’ at Moree

Alan Dick and his editor Andrew Marshall did a terrific job covering the story of the farm invasion of QLD farmers John & Lyn Hudson (who are accused of illegal land clearing on their Moree property “Yarrol”). Their home was invaded by 8 goons from the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change on the instructions of NSW minister Phil Kopenberg.

This story has shocked and frightened many farming families in NSW, QLD and Vic. Agmates has been contacted by a number of farmers who have CMA approved weed clearing programs in place as the Hudson’s had, but are now not game to proceed with them.

The next 1/3 of the page was devoted to a story by Rural Presses Canberra reporter Lucy Skuthorp

Make the Govt pay for those trees: Barnaby 21/06/2007 Lucy Skuthorp

This story alone could have been front page news. QLD senator Barnaby Joyce calling for a Senate enquiry into farmers property rights. The opening paragraph is sensational –
The disregard for property rights in Australia by all levels of Government could soon resemble communism, says QLD Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Both of the above stories involve QLD’ers, one a farming family and one a Senator, yet QCL’s editor Mark Phelps did not consider them important enough to QLD farmers to run them.

Perhaps he was just to busy defending himself at the Australian Press Council against charges of bias reporting brought by the producer group Australian Beef Association (ABA).

Then this week we see the Land Newspaper front page story –
Chop-Chop.
Meet the rebel crusaders who are leading hundreds of farmers in an illegal tree-chopping protest claiming their carbon credits were robbed – p8-9

The story is so important to NSW farmers that Editor Andrew Marshall put it on the front page with pages 8 and 9 devoted to it.

Now if Native Vegetation Laws and Tree Clearing Bans were just restricted to NSW then you might understand QCL editor Mark Phelps lack of interest in it. But that’s not the case just ask Ashley Mackay or the 1,000 plus farmer members of QLD’s Property Rights Australia.

Also you could ask the hundred’s of QLD farmers who plan to take part in one of rural Australia’s largest ever acts of civil disobedience.

But the story does get a mention this week in the QCL. Page four in an article by Lucy Skuthorp –Carbon case still on.

So Andrew Marshall Editor of The Land devotes 3 full pages to the story, now remember it’s the same issues here in QLD as in NSW but QCL’s editor Mark Phelps could only manage to print one 5 line paragraph at the bottom of that article. – Here it is

“This weekend the CPPA will take the radical step of proceeding with threatened civil disobedience, instigating a “national chop a tree day” in retaliation against land clearing laws on freehold land.”

Apparently QCL editor Mark Phelps thinks that devoting the front page of the QCL to this headline “END of Exemption NLIS mandatory July 1” is far more important news to QLD farmers than

1. Farmer Peter Spencer of CPPA winning the first round of a case in the Federal Court on behalf of all Australian farmers against the Commonwealth that has put The National Emissions Trading scheme on hold. With a win meaning that farmers will win back the ownership of 1.85 - $5.18billion dollars worth of carbon credits.

2. Federal treasurer Peter Costello admitting that it was the Coalition Gov that stopped tree clearing in NSW and QLD.

3. QLD Senator Barnaby Joyce lobbying Rural and Regional Affairs Committee chair Bill Heffernan for a Senate enquiry into Property Rights for farmers.

4. QLD, NSW & VIC farmers chopping trees down in protest over draconian Native vegetation laws in each state.

One has to wonder what the QCL’s editor Mark Phelps motivation for running this seemingly ho hum head line was (I mean it’s hardly breaking news).

Perhaps it’s got something to do with the retraction that the Australian Press Council forced him to run in highlight on page 6 of this weeks QCL after ABA’s complaint of bias toward them by him was upheld. ABA after all has been loud and strong in it’s criticism of the NLIS system.

It’s an odd way to treat a group that has 1,300 producer members who graze 16.8% of the nations cattle.

Cheers,
Your Agmate Steve

National "Chop A Tree Day" - July 1

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:58:00 +0000

Important announcement to all land owners.

G'day Agmates,

Following is a press release from CPPA - Commonwealth Property Protection Association. Opposite is Peter Spencer, a farmer from Southern NSW who is currently fighting 2 cases in the High Court and 2 in the Federal Court on behalf of Australian farmers and citizens.

Click here to read CPPA's update on these court actions on behalf of Australian Farmers.

_______________________________________________

NATIONAL "CHOP A TREE DAY" - July 1st (Civil Disobedience Planned by Australian farmers.

Metaphorically speaking, the “Chop a Tree Day” delivers a sharp response directly to Governments who usurp their Constitutional limited authority.

Over recent times, the politically expedient have treacherously Tampa-d with the inherent and Constitutionally settled principles surrounding Crown LAND RIGHTS and have tossed overboard, the most basic and fundamental historical freehold land use known to civilised law.

Currently, the Commonwealth Property Protection Association has four cases before jurisdiction in the New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Supreme and Federal Courts, where overall, Government defendants have, on each legitimate appeal, perpetually moved “to strike out” – [that the argument not be heard] no less than twenty times.

In metaphorically “Chopping a Tree” what the CPPA is drawing attention to is, that clearly, the all powerful, tyrannical Governments have abused and misrepresented the Freehold System and appear equally determined to deny the common people the due process of providing them their day in COURT.

If the apparent influence of contemporary governing tyranny is such, that the common people cannot be heard in the civilised area of the Court, then metaphorically speaking, we must reclaim our land rights from the fascist dictators and “chop” out all repugnant legislation, which now overrides the lawful Grown-registered approval constitutionally intended to remain with whoever holds the deeds.

Unless freehold law is reclaimed the civilised society as we know it will disappear.

Land rights belong to the people with the Private investment. Freehold is the greatest generator of wealth known to man. We need more freehold land then 14% - not less.

Join this struggle against those who are trying to have freehold rights abolished see the papers produce by the Australia Institute - say no to this loss of your inherited rights.

Freehold land has an 800 year old tradition, Freehold Crown system is the oldest land right law known in history, stand up and protect this fundamental part of our civilised society - demand more freehold land not less. Stop the States attempt to usurp our land.

Despite their bluff, Parliament CANNOT legislate away the Crown-registered existing approval of that property investment right intended to provide a continuing use of whichever development the zoning of the freehold permits.

The primary, unrestricted, none – discretionary Agricultural use of any Freehold ( as the singular parcel of Land is defined in the Real Property Act and transferred through conveyance to the Landowner ) is consistently identified in all Local Government Rural Zonings for Rate and Taxing purposes.

We own our vegetation; it is ours to do with as we wish; and there is no other alternative now left to us.

Support our National Chop a Tree day.

Show the Nation, Democracy is alive and well, exercise your right do not let tyranny rule - join the civil disobedience program.

Your freedom is only guaranteed buy your preparedness for eternal vigilance.

Demand more freehold land form your duly elected member NOT LESS.

FIGHT BACK

CPPA
Perpetual Guardians, of Australia’s Secure Property Rights
___________________________________________________
Cheers,
Your Agmate - Steve
AGMATES - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

CPPA has Win on behalf of Farmers in Federal Court

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:51:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

NSW farmer Peter Spencer head of the Constitutional Property Protection Association CPPA.

Today saw a Landmark win for all Australian Farmers affected by Land Clearing Legislation.

Peter Spencer and CPPA had filed an injunction in the Federal Court of Australia to stop the Federal government taking 74 million tonnes of carbon credits from farmers without compensation to meet their Kyoto Targets.

The value of those credits is between 1.85billion and 5.18billion dollars.

The Commonwealth failed in it's attempts to have the case dismissed.

The Commonwealth Governments legal team firstly moved to have to have the case "stuck out". When this did not succeed they then moved to have Peter Spencer post huge "security costs" with the court or else abandon the case.

In what a member of Peter Spencer's CPPA organization described as a "dirty little trick" the Commonwealth produced evidence of Mr Spencer's financial position, arguing that if he lost the case he had no money to cover court costs.

Mr Spencer's Barrister explained to the presiding judge that Mr Spencer was only in this financial position because the State Governments Vegetation Management Legislation had rendered his 14,000 acre property totally without value. Mr Spencer has had 80% of his property "locked up" and untouchable because for the Land Clearing restrictions.

The court dismissed both of the Commonwealths motions and ordered that Mr Spencer through his senior Barrister Dr John Walsh lodge a Statement of Claims to the court when the hearing resumes on the 19th of July.

Cobar farmer and CPPA activist Alastair McRobert told ABC News " The Commonwealth has colluded with State Governments to restrict the amount of vegetation the property owners can clear."

"This is all about locking the landscape up as a carbon sink on private land and the Federal Government taking the Carbon Credits to meets it's Kyoto target, Mr McRobert said".

A source within the CPPA told Agmates that Peter Spencer and the CPPA with very little money has achieved today what the NSW Farmers Association with their 'war chest" of 90million dollars said was impossible.

Rural Press Canberra reporter Lucy Skuthorp reported last week in the Land & Country Life Newspaper that the Federal Governments entire National Emissions Trading Scheme is on hold because of the CPPA's injunction in the Federal Court.

___________________________________________________________

Cheers,
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

Do we live in Zimbabwe, Russia or Nazi Germany?

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:55:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

These are grave times. Opposite is the "Face of Evil". The Honorable Phillip Christian Koperberg MP. Member for Blue Mountains (NSW)
* Member for Blue Mountains (NSW)
* Minister for Climate Change Environment and Water
* Member of The Australian Labour Party

_________________________________________________

Here is a quiz, tell me from what time in history and who the parties involved are:

One day a businessman is at home with his family when unannounced three car loads of goons arrive at his family home.They state which state agency they are from but refuse to show any identification. They then force their way into the private home and proceed to search the premises, upending furniture, taking files, paperwork and computers.

They threaten the home owners and then proceed to interrogate the family for upwards of 8 hours. The property owners by law of that state cannot refuse to answer their interrogator's. They have no rights by law to legal representation.

At the end of the ordeal they are issued a "compliance notice".

About a week later they are notified by the state that as a result of the information gathered during their agents interrogation they must forfeit their business within two weeks.

The state also threatens them that if they cannot prove their innocence of the charges laid within 12 months they face a million dollar fine (bankruptcy).

Now for the Answer:
1. No it's not a Jewish Family living in 1938 Nazi Germany.
2. No it's no a suspected "enemy of the state" living in Stalin's Russia.
3. No it's not a white farming family living under the the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe.

It is in fact an honest hard working Australian farming family from Moree in NSW and this outrageous event happened just 2 weeks ago. - Unbelievable? No

You no doubt have seen on the National News the story about the alleged tree clearing in the "Gwydir Wetlands".

"Last Saturday the 16th of June New South Wales Minister Phil Koperburg spoke on ABC Radio National News under the powers of the NSW Vegetation Act he has issued orders to have the Hudson property “Yarrol” locked up and de-stocked by July 1.

Further he also said that after 12 months IF it is found the Hudson’s have broken the law they could face fines of up to 1 Million Dollars".

The Hudsons maintain they have not broken any laws, their land is Unrestricted Freehold and they were clearing noxious weeds as per the Vegetation Management Plan they had negotiated with the local catchment Management Authority.

This type of treatment of Farmers under the NSW Vegetation Management act was foreshadowed by the NSW Nationals when the Bill was rushed through the NSW Parliament: Here is an extract from that sitting of Parliament in November 2003:
__________________________________________________________

Mr Andrew Stoner (Member for Oxley and then leader of the NSW Nationals) speaking on the Bill in Parliament said:

.....The report also states in relation to clause 40 of the bill:

The Committee (Legislative Review Committee report) notes that the Bill reverses the onus of proof for owners, occupiers and managers of land in relation to native vegetation offences, once prohibited clearing of native vegetation is substantiated.

Mr Ian Slack-Smith (Then member for Barwon in who's electorate the Hudsons property isin): Russia sounds good.

Mr ANDREW STONER: As the honourable member for Barwon says, Russia's totalitarian Communist state is beginning to sound good. The report also states:

The Bill effectively deems such persons guilty unless they can prove their innocence or provide evidence regarding the matters set out in the Bill.

The Committee refers to Parliament the question of whether this trespass on personal rights is undue, given the object of facilitating the protection of native vegetation.

The report states in relation to clause 41 of the Native Vegetation Bill:

The Committee notes that the Bill reverses the onus of proof for certain persons concerned with the management of a corporation in relation to native vegetation offences alleged to have been committed by the corporation. The Bill deems such persons guilty unless they can prove their innocence or provide evidence regarding the matters set out in the Bill.

The Committee refers to Parliament the question of whether this trespass on personal rights is undue given the Bill's object of facilitating the protection of native vegetation.

The report also states in relation to clause 36 of the Catchment Management Authorities Bill:

The Committee notes that the broad power of entry contained in clause 36 of the Catchment Management Authority Bill 2003 trespasses on individual rights.
The Committee refers to Parliament the question as to whether this is an undue trespass on rights.

The Committee further notes that there is no limitation on the class of persons upon whom these powers can be conferred. In addition, there appears to be no formal instrument or procedure for conferring these powers on persons. Nor is there any requirement on such persons to produce identification.

The Committee has previously noted its concerns regarding legislation which confers powers which significantly affect rights, without setting appropriate limits or guidelines as to whom those powers can be conferred – or their qualifications …

Mr ANDREW FRASER: Clause 7 makes reference to the clearing of native vegetation. The removal of a limb from a tree or any activity that might cause a tree to die is regarded as broad-scale clearing. What a joke!....... This legislation punishes farmers who, through good management and stewardship, have looked after their lands for generations.........As mentioned earlier, proposed section 40 removes a farmer's right to the presumption of innocence. That is a gross violation of the human rights of land-holders.

Mr Ian Slack-Smith: It is the Mugabe bill.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I will vote against the bills—they are the most dastardly bills I have seen in a long time.

____________________________________________________

QLD Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce also stated in letters to the Editor in the QLD country Life and The Land Newspaper that this taking of citizens rights smacks of a Communist State.

Australians who believe in a free democracy can not longer stand by and watch this happen to our mates. Our rights as citizens of a free democracy are being stolen by unjust and illegal state and federal legislation. We can no longer sit back and let this happen.

Jews in Nazi Germany, "enemies of the state in Russia" minority white farmers in Zimbabwe did nothing until it was to late and look what happen to them.

One group is doing something about it. The Constitutional Property Protection Association CPPA is heading to the Federal Court to challenge this threat to our human rights. Click here to read whats happening.

Contact agmates to find out what you can do to support Peter Spencer and his outstanding organization.

CPPA is out their defending your rights. Don't stick your head in the sand over this, who knows, you could be the next Farmer on the "States" hit list.

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve

Coalition Gov't Admits They Stopped Land Clearing

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:07:00 +0000

G'day Agmates:
Unbelievably on the ABC's 7.30 report on Wednesday night Reporter Kerry O'Brien got Treasurer Peter Costello to admit that it was the Liberal/National Party Coalition Government that has STOPPED FARMERS LAND CLEARING.

For the last 10 years farmers in QLD & NSW have believed that the State Labour Governments in QLD & NSW have been the ones responsible for the Vegetation Management Acts that has taken so much land away from farmers without fair & full compensation.No No - not the case.

Mr Costellos admission on national television makes it clear to all that the National Party (Representing Rural Australians) are actually responsible for this terrible injustice foystered upon their own farmer members and supporters.

This is an outrage. How can Nationals leader Mark Vail and deputy Warren Truss and the other Federal National Party Members ever expect their farming voter base to trust them again.

As former NSW Farmers association president Mal Peters has said "its such a shock, its like discovering that your most trusted mate, is no mate at all, he's actually had his hand in your back pocket for years".

The Nationals have sacrificed their own voter base not only without a whimper, but through a huge deception. Up until now the Nationals have been able to blame the stopping of land clearing and resultant hardships caused to farm businesses on the State Labour Governments, the Greens and environmental groups. Not anymore.

If your as outraged at this disgusting deception as Agmates is, call your local National or Liberal Federal MP and ask how he/she could do this to you? We'd like to hear their reply.

Below is an exert of the interview giving you what was said. To read the full transcript of Kerry O'Briens interview with Treasurer Peter Costello from Wednesday nights 7.30 report click here.

PETER COSTELLO: And the point I'm making, Kerry, is if you'd have been carbon trading in 2003 you would have been carbon trading to a Kyoto cap, which we're going to meet anyway. The important thing is that when we're carbon trading beyond Kyoto, that we are trading in a way which is reducing beyond Kyoto, because we're going to meet Kyoto, beyond Kyoto in relation to -

KERRY O'BRIEN: But Kyoto was a generous agreement for Australia, it was actually allowing you to increase your emissions. Do you agree?

PETER COSTELLO: Let me come back to the point that you made earlier, that because we stopped land clearing, somehow that shouldn't be counted. Actually, stopping land clearing was a good thing.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Yes of course. Of course.

PETER COSTELLO: But reducing carbon -

KERRY O'BRIEN: It was the only thing that allowed Australia to claim that it's meeting its targets.

PETER COSTELLO: Yeah well, it's - that's - but this was all designed to stop land clearing and we stopped land clearing, and it's helped us to meet our Kyoto target. If I may say so, Australia actually did something practical. Britain, by the way, meets its Kyoto target because Maggie Thatcher closed the British coal mines. Not because they stopped carbon trading, because Maggie Thatcher, for other economic reasons better - Australia is actually one of those countries that is on track and is on track because it actually did something quite positive, that is, stopped land clearing. Now, I think the important thing -

----------------------------------------------
It is now an indisputable fact that the Liberal & National Party Coalition Government
are responsible for the States Labour Governments introducing the draconian Vegetation Management Legislation in NSW & QLD.
These laws imposed upon Farming families have very little to do with biodiversity and almost everything to do with the executive governments stripping Australian farming families of a valuable asset (carbon credits) for their own gain without just & fair compensation. Thats not on in any democracy in the free world.

This is without doubt the greatest attempted "resumption of citizens property by stealth" ever attempted in this country.

Coming up this week - a history making chapter in this incredible story of power, money and Democratic governments abuse of it's vested powers. Subscribe at the top right hand side to get this breaking news story as it happens. You can't afford to miss it!

Cheers,
Your Agmate - Steve
Agmates - 100% Pro Australian Farmers

Each Day More Trees Will Die

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Wed, 30 May 2007 06:45:00 +0000

G'day Agmates - We have been really busy championing farmers cause for full compensation for the Land the state & federal governments have forced you to lock up under the Vegetation management acts in NSW & QLD.

Starting to get national media coverage with the ABC National radio featuring the issue on yesterday morning breakfast with Fran Kelly and last night a 1 hour segment on Radio talks at 6pm. Tonight at 6pm there is a feature broadcast nationally on PM.

Following is an article that ran as the 3rd story on today's (30-05-2007) Crikey web site click here to see Crikey story. Check it out on Crikey or read it below.

Also the Sydney Morning Herald is covering the issue in a story tomorrow.

Below is a email from Crikey about the story. it is read by 40,000 mostly Urban readers.

_______________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 13:23:30 +1000
From: "Thomas Hunter"
To: steve@agmates.com
Great story Steve. Here is today's edition your piece is item 3. It goes out to about 15,000 people, but gets read by more than 40,000. If you want to stay in touch about it, we'd be happy to carry more news of your campaign.
Cheers

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EACH DAY MORE TREES WILL DIE

Australian farmers have had enough of federal and state governments' reclamation of their land by stealth. So, on Sunday 1 July as a form of civil disobedience, thousands of farmers across Queensland , NSW and Victoria will cut down a tree. On 2 July they will cut down two trees and so on.

How has it come to this? The Federal Government sent Senator Ian Campbell to the Kyoto Conference in 1997 with a simple instruction. Only sign the agreement if the Australian government could insert a clause that allowed them to count the carbon credits accrued from stopping landing clearing in Australia . The clause 3.7 is known internationally as "The Australian Clause".

In signing the Kyoto agreement Australia pledged to contain emissions to 108% of the level they were at in 1990. Australia is the only industrialised nation that is on track to meet its targets.

Stopping land clearing has netted Australia a saving in emissions of 74million metric tonnes of carbon to October 2006. To put that into perspective, to gain the same reductions in emissions you'd have to shut down the entire economy of New Zealand or Ireland . For the same period the energy industry in Australia has increased emissions by 84 million metric tonnes of carbon.

The Federal government after Kyoto did a deal with the State Labor Governments in NSW and Queensland -- in exchange for additional funding -- that they would legislate to ban tree clearing in their state under the guise of being responsible environment managers.

It was a win-win for the Federal Government, who could meet its international C02 emission targets whilst allowing the economy to grow at record levels. By getting the State Labor Governments to legislate the Vegetation Laws they could dodge the bullets from their traditional rural voter base that was affected, all the while trotting out their green credentials to the Australian urban population.

The vegetation management laws introduced in both states are best described as draconian. A farmer who is accused of murder has more legal rights than a farmer who cuts down a state-owned tree.

In Queensland , if a Department of Natural Resources officer issues a farmer with a 'Compliance Notice' the only recourse a farmer has is in a magistrates court. Our entire legal system is turned around -- the farmer must prove his innocence, whereas in any other case the prosecutor must prove the defendants guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

If the government came and took up to 80% of your home or business to meet their objectives you'd expect compensation. Indeed the constitution says that they can't take your land or assets without 'full compensation'. Farmers have had none. This is grossly unfair and farmers after a decade of trying to undo this injustice via political lobbying and the courts are at their wit's end.

The end result of Governments acting unfairly and unjustly towards its citizens is civil disobedience. History has shown that in a strong democracy, if its citizens can't rely on their judicial system to uphold their democratically won rights, civil disobedience is the only course of action. The result of Governments behaving badly towards its citizens is, in turn, a protest in the form of its citizens behaving badly.
----------------------------------------------------
Your agmate - Steve
AGMATES 100% Pro Australian Farmers

QLD & NSW FARMERS JOIN IN 10BILLION DOLLAR CLASS ACTION

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:30:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

*********************************************
FARMERS TAKE OUT 10BILLION DOLLAR CLASS ACTION
AGAINST THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTs
& THE COAL AND POWER INDUSTRIES.
*********************************************

I've not published for 4 weeks, but there is GREAT NEWS. Please read the email we have received from Alistair McRobert of Cobar in NSW. My reply follows and his reply to that.

If you are a QLD or NSW farmer who's business has been affected by Tree Clearing and Vegetation Legislation, AGMATES STRONGLY URGES you to contact us to JOIN the 10billion Dollar class action against the federal government. Read on

************************************************
From: Alastair McRobert [mailto:@bigpond.net.au]
Sent: 25/04/2007 12:20 AM
To: steve@agmates.comSubject: Carbon Trading
************************************************

Dear Steve

I just found your web site on Google, I have browsed quite a bit of the info on there, I can appreciate the research you have done and continuing to do on no doubt the biggest conspiracy against the farming community that I can remember.

There is now a undisputable paper trail of public documents to prove that the Fed, NSW and QLD Govs with plenty of assistance from the executive of our Farmer organisations have stolen by regulation farmers equity and rights to farm and graze their property.

Next week there will be a payed article in the Land News paper, it has not been finalised yet, but the content will be calling on the Fed Gov and the Coal industry to pay the farmers which have been affected by Native Vegetation Regulations the 10 billion dollars worth of Carbon Credits that they have stolen.

The article will call on affected farmers to register to be part of a class action to recover the compensation that should have been payed to farmers.

When the article is finalised I will send it to you,

Congratulations on the site, I can see you are dedicated to make this gross injustice right. I will send your link on to everyone I know.

Best Regards
Alastair McRobert
Meryula Stn
Cobar NSW

***********************************************

From: Agmates [mailto:steve@agmates.com]
Sent: 25/04/2007 11:39 AM
To: 'Alastair McRobert'
Subject: G'day Alastair
**********************************************

Alastair,

Great to hear from you.

Mate you have my FULL SUPPORT. You are a very astute farmer, businessman. A class action is exactly what now has to happen. I have not published to Agmates for about 4 weeks, because that’s exactly what I wanted to suggest, but wanted to see if there was a farmer/s out there with enough get up and go to stand up and take leadership on this issue.

Looks like your our man. (Leadership is always taken, never bestowed).

A class action is exactly what affected farmers as a group should be doing. Our court system is there to protect ordinary Australians from being defrauded by business and governments.

If the Federal & State / Commodity Farmer Associations (in particular AgForce, NSW Farmers Association, The Cattle Council and most importantly the NFF) had been doing their jobs they would have lead the charge into the Court Room.

This should have happened as soon as it was obvious that the State and Federal Governments had pulled this enormous con job on Farmers in NSW & QLD.

If this ‘swindle’ had been perpetrated on any other industry in the country it would have been before the courts 5 years ago.

Mate the only thing is that I’d ask you to check that you are going for an appropriate amount in compensation.

My research has lead me to believe that the amount of money involved is between 19.4billion on the low side to 54.6billion on the high side. I’d be happy to give you that info that leads me to this conclusion.

Alastair, not only would I like to speak with you, but I would really like to publish your email and the above response on Agmates.

It will give your call to action huge coverage with Agmates readers, not only in QLD & NSW but right across Australian. (And it’s Free, not like what your full page ad will cost).

I will be urging affected farmers to register for the class action.

Hear from you soon and well done,

Cheers,

Steve Truman
Rural Information, Technology & E-commerse
Unashamedly working to help you make your rural enterprise more profitable!
AGMATES – 100% PRO AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

*********************************************

From: Alastair McRobert [mailto: @bigpond.net.au]
Sent: 26/04/2007 4:34 AM
To: Agmates
Subject: Re: G'day Alastair
********************************************

Steve

It was great to talk earlier, is late now, been watching world cup cricket in-between reading more info on your site, your skills in putting all this together and presenting the facts as you have to your readers are fantastic, the powers that be would definitely be watching your site with interest and some would be feeling quite nervous.

Attached is a draft of the full page article going in the Land next week, Peter Spencer said you can promote the class action how ever you like, to find out more about Peter you can log on to sosnews.org/ there is a profile on him and his fight to get justice for himself and all Australian farmers.

His story is similar to the family that you have profiled with the 20,000 acres of Brigalow scrub, there is thousands of farmers and graziers throughout NSW &QLD that are affected to some degree, the cost to join a class action per farmer would be minimal if the action wasn't successful, all is needed is the numbers to participate, everyone I have spoken to in this region is keen to be in it.

I will send you some more docs you may have not seen tomorrow.

Alastair

*********************************************

Agmates, I will publish the draft of the article for you in the next few days. Those farmers wishing to get more information can do so by emailing me at steve@agmates.com

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve
AGMATES 100% PRO AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

Major TV Network Program -The Great Carbon Credit Swindle

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:25:00 +0000

G'day,

**********************************************
Exciting News - We have a major network looking
at running a feature on QLD & NSW Farmers
being Swindled out of Carbon Credits
**********************************************

Below is a copy of an email Agmates has received from a major network looking at picking up our story.

***********************************************
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Name Removed by Agmates
To: steve@agmates.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 3:49:47 PM
Subject: Program Suggestion

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your email dated 26th March 2007.

Your program suggestion regarding QLD and NSW farmers has been passed on
to one of our producers for consideration. We may be in touch with you
again if we feel we can take this matter further.

Thanks again for taking the time to write to us.

Sincerely,

Program Assistant
Name removed by agmates

**********************************************
Below is a copy of Agmates email to the
Network.
**********************************************

From: Steve Truman
To: name removed by agmates
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 5:22:39 PM

Subject: Re: The Great Carbon Credit Swindle

G'day (name removed)

Thanks for your email,

The Blog article was a little disjointed, so I've done a chronological summary to make it a little easier for you.

* In 1997 at the Kyoto Conference - Environment minister Ian Campbell holding out to the end of the conference only agreed to sign Australia up only if clause 3.7 was included (this clause became known internationally as "The Australian Clause).

* What this clause did was allow Australia to meets it's agreed reduction targets to the year 2008 by doing nothing else except stopping land clearing in Qld & NSW.

* The Coalition Government have never flagged this as being the case, but instead did a deal with the labour state Governments of Qld & NSW. In exchange for them passing legislation to stop farmers clearing (and improving) their Land the Federal Government would give them more funding.

Done deal and a win win for both Federal coalition and State Labour. State Labour didn't mind copping the flack, because most farmers are conservative voters, Federal Coalition avoided the fallout, but looked great to the Greens and the international community.

* Sophisticated Financial modelling shows that the banning of land clearing is costing Qld & NSW farmers $600 million dollars a year through lost production.

*There has been absolutely nothing else done by any government to halt our emissions, yet "we are leading the world" in cutting emissions to date. The banning of land clearing has equated to a cut of C02 emissions of 78million tonnes. Meanwhile for the same period the Stationary Energy Industry (Power) alone has increased emissions by 84 million tonnes.

* Having stopped land clearing Australia is one of the few countries in the world to "be on track' to meet their Kyoto commitment of only having an increase of 8% on increased CO2 levels over the 1990 baseline. To put this in perspective Canada who have not been able to do the same thing have had an increase of 30% in emissions and have no hope of meeting their target.

* Does Australia expect Qld & NSW farmers alone to shoulder this huge financial burden whilst every other industry has grown with gay abandon over the last 10 years. Farmers have done this, all the while believing that it was the conservation groups who were doing them in. It's a shock to find out it's their own mates in the national party who have shafted them.

* What the Federal government has actually done by stopping farmers land clearing is STOLEN 78 million tonnes of CO2 credits off farmers.

At the bottom end of the price scale for a tonne of carbon ($25 per tonne) this equates to $1.95 Billion dollars. At the top end of the estimated range ($70 per tonne) it is $5.46 Billion dollars.

This price range is flagged in the federal Governments own report commissioned into a National Emissions trading Scheme. this report was done for the Prime Ministers task group.

* There is no other industry in Australia that would cop being being sacrificed by the Federal government to this extent for "the sake of the national good".

* Now, with the coming of a National Emissions Trading Scheme, Australian farmers want to be able to participate in the "wealth transfer' that is Carbon Credits.

*In the carbon trading model, you are in one of 3 positions, A Net emitter, Carbon Neutral or a Net sequester. If you are a net emitter (like a power company) the only way to cut your emissions by 60% over the next 43 years (the Kyoto target) is by buying Carbon Credits off a Net sequester (someone who sequesters more Carbon than they emit).

There are only 2 sources of Carbon Sequestration, Trees and Soil. Farmers are in the Box seat to be net sequesters and hence be one of biggest the recipients of the hugest wealth transfer this civilisation has ever seen.

Estimations are that global Carbon Trading over the next 43 years will be a $15 Trillion dollar industry. That's $15 trillion dollars going from Industries that pollute to those that sequester.

This is a win win for all, because farmers would actually have to become Carbon farmers to take part in all of this. The time is near when farmers could actually make more money from caring for the biodiversity of their soil and planting trees (rather than knocking them down.) than they could out of farming and grazing.

But here's the second scandal in all of this - The Coalition Government wants nothing to do with it. They have told the NFF (the peak Australian farming Lobby Group) that measuring and selling Soil Carbon credits is not possible. Indeed the Federal agriculture minister Peter McGauran has told farmers that there is "nothing in this for farmers".

Meanwhile Australian Energy companies AGL (Australians Largest) and Origin energy are buying 'offset credits" off farmers in Canada, USA, Mexico and Brazil. these are Soil carbon credit traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

So now we have the ridiculous scenario where Australian Companies are buying soil carbon credits off foreign farmers so they can continue to pollute here in Australia. Meanwhile or farmers miss out on this wealth transfer.

What the Government has done is offer Australian farmers piddling "Stewardship Payments" (another government handout) in lieu of being able to trade soil carbon credits.

These credits will accrue and will (are) being measured by the Government as we speak. They no doubt plan to STEAL those as well (just like the Credits from Land Clearing Bans) and give them to one of their big industry mates to offset their unabated growth.

This is an absolute scandal and Agmates ask each and every Australian who supports 'a fair go' to be outraged at the way the Farmers of Qld and NSW have been swindled by the Federal Government.

Hope this makes a complex issue a little clearer and perhaps you could support a 'fair go' for Australian Farmers, rather than as a tax payer sponsoring another 'hand out'

Cheers - your Agmate Steve

AGMATES, 100% PRO - AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

**********************************************
End of email
**********************************************

P.S. Please help Agmates - Subscribe to get your updates by email from the automated service Feedblitz. There will come a time soon when I will not be able to email this directly to you. So if you don't want to miss out on Australia's most hard hitting PRO FARMER NEWS - than subscribe NOW.

Your Agmate - Steve

AGL & ORIGIN ENERGY - Autralian Companies pay Foriegn Farmers for Carbon Credits, Aussies Farmers Miss Out.

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:27:00 +0000

G'day

I know that I have already posted an article today............BUT
It's Saturady Night and I've had a couple of drinks and won't be as diplomatic as usual. So here goes...........

WARNING - This is HOT, CONTROVERSIAL and 100% PRO-AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

I know in advance this posting will upset a few people - But hey if I'm wrong your welcome to refute the facts I'm quoting.

*********************************************
Honbourable Minister for Agriculture
Peter McGauran
Quote " there is nothing in it for farmers"
********************************************

Of course he is refering to farmers getting nothing out of a Carbon Trading Scheme. I'm going to deal with that LIE here.

Because, this is the LIE that has crippled YOUR STATE & NATIONAL Agri-polilical Associations on this issue. You see this is the LIE that was spun by the minister to the NFF.

The NFF then without verifying the facts, (totally trusting that the Federal Coalition Government would always look after FARMERS) , then spun the same story to the State and Commodity Bodies. The State and Commodity Associations would merely have assumed that the NFF had "checked it out" and believed the LIE.

Hence the fact they have done NOTHING to put the collective VIEW of AUSTRALIAN farmers forward in a forceful way.

*********************************************
PROOF THAT THIS IS A LIE
********************************************

My god Peter McGauran and the NFF must have cringed when they saw these stories in the press this week.

*********************************************
AGL & OGIN ENERGY SIGN UP TO BUY
SOIL CARBON CREDITS FROM FARMERS
IN CANADA, THE USA, MEXICO & BRAZIL
*********************************************

No the headlines did not say exactly that, but thats exactly whats happening.

Now remember according to the Federal Government and the good folk "as the mute whispering voice of Australian Farmers", it is too an imprecise science to be able to measure soil carbon sequestration. According to them it's just not possible and to expensive to monitor. That's why there is nothing in it for Australian farmers.

Well what the story is that AGL the nations largest gas and electricity company and it's rival Origin Energy have signed voluntary but legally binding agreements to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

Now they are going to do this by joining THE CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. They will buy their Carbon Credits there to offset their polluting in Australia.

Now where does the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE get it's credits from. Well they do a huge trade in..........guess what?..............soil carbon credits sequested from farmer in CANADA, USA, MEXICO and BRAZIL. They have been trading in these since April 2005 (2 years).

So while you are told a LIE (there is nothing in it for Australian Farmers) Autralian Companies are buying soil carbon credits off foriegn farmers.

Folks, emissions trading is going to see the greatest "Wealth Transfer" ever known to a civilization. And thanks to the Federal Government and the NFF and Associates, AUSTRALIAN FARMERS will get nothing. But what sort of money are we talking about here?

*********************************************
ITS A $15 TRILLION DOLLAR BONANZA
$15,000,000,000,000
*********************************************

* Koyoto target is to cut Greenhouse gas emmissions by 60% globaly by the year 2050 (43 years)

* On the 1990 base level (the emission level in 1990) a 60% cut represents 600 million tonnes.

* At Recent soil carbon trade prices in Australia of $25 per tonne that is $15 Trillion dollars over the next 43 years. (Thats $348 Billion dollars a year).

* Global Carbon Trading for 2006 was just $37 Billion. But hang on, 80% of that #37 Billion was just in Europe. This years trade is expected to top $40 Billion globally.

Well Australian Farmers will never see the wealth transfer thats happening right now as AGL & ORIGIN pay Canadian, American, Mexican and Brazilian farmers for the right to pollute here in Australia. Meanwhile Australian farmers get offered token Stewaedship Payments (What a joke, an insult).

* Last week Australian Company - Global Renewables announce a $5 Billion Dollar agreement with Britians Lancashire & Blackpool councils. The councils are investing the money for Global Renewable to cut their Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 4 million tonnes.

* US Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is at the forefront of having The Global Pollution Reduction Act (s.309) voted into US law. The bill gives the US EPA the directive to set milestones to reduce US Greenhouse Gas emissions by 80% of the 1990 level by 2050. Remember it was $15 Trillion dollars by cutting the levels by just 60%.

Now Section 714 of that Act contains:
"Standards to account for biological sequestration of Carbon, including Forests and Soil"

As I said readers, Carbon Trading globally is the greatest transfer of wealth this civilization has seen, and already AUSTRALIAN FARMERS are missing out while the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT offers handouts like the Offensive "Stewardship Payments".

*********************************************
WHY FARMERS CAN'T TRUST THE NATIONAL PARTY
********************************************

There is a belief amoungst the Agri-political organizations that you can trust the National Party to look after their interests. Well here is the PROOF that this is not correct.

Under the Coalition Government Tree Clearing in NSW & QLD has been banned. We have always been lead to believe that Tree Clearing was a State issues and FARMERS were at the mercey of GREEN State Labour Governments (Messers Carr and Beattie). This is not the case.

* It's a fact that Senator Robert Hill who was the Minister for the Environment in 1997 at the Koyota Climate Change Conference inserted a clause (3.7 known internationally as the AUSTRALIAN CLAUSE) and signed the agreement.

* That Senator Hill (who is more GREEN than some in the Greens party) is a great negotiator, there is no doubt. Using time pressure ( a great negotiation tool) he waited right until the end of the conference when they were wanting to finish up said he would only sign the agreement if that clause was inserted.

* What that clause allowed the Australian Federal Government to do was "Count the Greenhouse Gas that had been emitted by land clearing in 1990 as part of their base line calculation."

* What Senator Hill achieved was a master stroke. He'd stop land clearing (which he hated) and use the Carbon Credits Created by no land clearing (78 million tonnes over the period) to meet the reductions Australia told the world it would achieve by 2008.

* Then in the move that sold NSW & QLD farmers down the drain, they persuaded the State Governments to stop Land Clearing in their states. All the while the National Party watched on and said nothing.

* The result has been to deflect the rath of affected farmers to the State Labour Governments (who didn't really mind because they know most farmers are conservative voters and they had not much to lose. But they would keep the GREEN left side of their party happy). Meanwhile the Federal Coalition Government are off the hook and taking the applause globally as a Government and nation meeting its global responibilities.

* My proof is what former NSW Premier Bob Carr and Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in the Sydney Media today.

* Malcolm Turnbull say's Australia "has led the world on climate change". Which is true we have. He is very proud of the fact that Europe is following his lead to outlaw the incandescent light bulb. He is very proud of the fact that Australia is one of the few countries on track to meet its Kyoto targets.

* Here'sTHE CRUNCH - The Cats out of the bag. -

Bob Carr is at pains to remind Mr Turnbull that its not because Australia has cut its industry emissions. (AGMATES NOTE: the Electricity industry has increased it's emissions by 84 million tonnes over the same period that agriculure has accured 78 millions tonnes credit by the land clearing ban).

Bob siad the Australian Government meeting its targets is only possible because Australia was given a legup at Kyoto by being allowed to offset emissions by stopping large-scale land clearing in Queensland and NSW.

So thats how the NATIONAL PARTY let QLD and NSW farmers be put to the sword to meet its international commitments.

**********************************************
HOW MUCH BURDEN DO QLD & NSW FARMERS
HAVE TO BEAR FOR THE NATIONAL GOOD?
**********************************************

* Financial models have estimated that the lost business opportunites from the stopping of farmers clearing to improve their properties and production is $600 MILLION DOLLARS per year.

* But hang on what about the wealth that has been accumulated in the growth of the national Electricity Industry in that period. The whole economy of the country has been able to grow unabated over the last 10 years, because farmers have been sacrificed "for the national good".

* Now the very same Government is telling farmers "there is nothing in this for you" TRUST US.

**********************************************
Lets Put a Face to these numbers:
DAN & LEANNE LUKE of Bygana Clermont QLD are
a great example of FARMERS crucified
**********************************************

Dan contacted me earlier in the week - here's his situation

* They have over 20,000 acres of standing Brigalow country that was to be developed as capital became available on a continual program of developing a property in ones lifetime.

* Once cleared and sown to Buffell grass 20,000+ acres is a very valuable asset. Now they are not allowed by State Laws to touch the Brigalow and the land is worthless. Not only is it unsaleable, but the lost productivity opportunity of that country lost through all the fat bullocks they will never sell off the improved pasture.

* Now the Lukes are pretty positive people and adaptable like most farmers. They think maybe it's not so bad, it's full of trees and trees sequest carbon, shouldn't be to hard, I can sell the Carbon sequestered by my Brigalow trees and maybe just maybe make a good income each year from that. Fair enough!

* So the lukes went off and spoke to some Agforce people about it. Guess what he was told - No way, theres nothing in carbon trading for farmers. He went to his State Nationals MP Shane Knuth. No help there.

* So here is a great young Australian farming family that have had their livehood and family future ripped away from them by a Ruthless Federal Government. That same government then tells him "there is nothing in emissions trading for you".

* Then after trying to keep them out of the Global Bonanza that is carbon trading the same Federal Government offers them a hand out in the form of a piddling stewardship payment.

**********************************************
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTLEY DISCRACEFUL WAY TO TREAT
QLD & NSW FARMERS.
**********************************************

The obscene thing about all of this is that its the one Political Party (The Nationals) that farmers trusted.

"It's like the shock of discovering that a trusted family friend has been syphoning money out of your account to spend on their luxurious lifestyle. All the while watching you struggle financially through hard times and pretending to care.

*********************************************
But Hang On Dan & Leanne
There is a group out there fighting for
Australian Farmers on this issue.
*********************************************

Dan asked me a couple of questions:

1. Is there anybody out there who can help us?
2. Is it too late?

I could not answer either question at the time, but I told him I see what I could find out.

Well Dan there is someone who is fighting hard for THE RIGHT of AUSTRALIAN FARMERS TO BE ABLE TO trade soil carbon credits (and remnant vegatation).

BUT DAN & LEANNE - they need farmers like yourselves to get involved. They have tried enlisting the support of the NFF and the NSW Farmers Association, but have not met much success.

They are they Australian Carbon Coalition and I spoke with Michael Kiely the head of the group. Here's his email back to Agmates.

*********************************************
Email from michael Kiely
Carbon Coalition
*********************************************

From: MIchael Kiely

Sent: 20/03/2007 6:29 PM
To: Agmates

Cc: Louisa Kiely; daniel@carboncoalition.com.au
Subject: Re: Support the Carbon Coalition?.

Hi Steve,

Welcome to the battlefield. There's plenty of action for everyone.

We are on the same path, tho we are a single issue organisation. We choose the path of diplomacy (mainly), tho at times warfare (your tactics) would be more appropriate.

We met with NFF"S David Crombie and Dr Findlay last year in AUgust, and was disappointed to read the NFF's misguided acceptance of the concept of 'stewardship payments' from Howard.

We see it as the first play in a pea and thimble swap Howard will pull to deny AUstralian farmers their right to carbon credits for soil carbon. Motive: keep them under government control. (See http://carboncreditsgovernmentwatch.blogspot.com/)

We made 2 submissions to the NETS enquiry. The NFF and NSW Farmers made 0.

The Carbon Coalition was formed as a membership-based organisation in february 06.

Our mission: to see the day soil carbon credits were traded in Australia. We believe this single act will have triple benefits - benefits for climate change, ecology and family farm economics.

Steve,

We desperatly need your readers help.
Tell them to go to our site www.carboncoalition.com.au they can register there and join us in the fight.

Michael

*******************************************

Dan & Leanne, the answer to question 2 is no its not too late, but hell its the 11th hour.

******************************************
IT IS SCANDALOUS THAT AUSTRALIAN FARMERS
HAVE BORN THE BRUNT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS SHADY DEAL IN SACRIFICING
THEM FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION
*****************************************

I am emailing this post to the QLD Country Life, The Land, and the other states Rural weekly papers. Also John Laws, Allan Jones, the Courier Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Age, The Adelaide Advertizer, The Hobart Mercury, and the Western Australian as well as Four Corners.

I am convinced that the city dewelling Australian public who love our farmers and have no end of admiration and respect for them will be horrified and disgusted that the Federal Government has forced QLD & NSW FARMERS to soley carry the load for what is a national problem and responsibility.

If you have made it this far with me - do me a favour, Subscribe at the top to receive your email notification. ITS SECURE & FREE and will really help. Currently each time I publish I'm sending out over 1,000 emails. it's hugely time consuming.

So do me a favour - put your email address in and hit get email updates.

Your Agmate - Steve
AGMATES 100% PRO _ AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - Keep your Head below the Parapit?

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:41:00 +0000

G'day,

***********************************************
NFF CAUGHT ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL
***********************************************

Had no reply from the NFF (the muted whispers of Australian farmers) to my questions as to why they have done nothing about lobbying for farmers interest in the formation of a National Emissions Trading Scheme.

Perhaps this email Agmates got from a NSW Farmers executive might give you a clue. I asked this person if I could identify them, but they (just like the NFF) have never responded.

P.S. For your information Agmates have received emails from 2 NSW Farmers exec's (We won't embarrass them by revealing who they are) asking to be removed from the email list (now thats really keeping your head "below the parapet")

***********************************************
EMAIL RECEIVED FROM NSW FARMER EXEC***********************************************

From: NAME REMOVED BY AGMATES
Sent: 18/03/2007 10:02 PM
To: trumanlivestock@bigpond.com
Subject: Barking up the wrong tree

Dear Mr Truman,

Thank you for copying me in on your round robin.

Please have a read of http://www.corporateeurope.org/greenhouse/fraud.html and tell me what you think

My feeling is that agriculture is a net contributor to green house gas emissions so we might be barking up the wrong tree to raise our heads above the parapet and ask to be checked out by the scientists in the hope that we'll get a payout!

They're more likely to ask for some money from us than pay us out anything.

My FEELING is that a native forest is an equal consumer and producer of carbon and is therefore in balance with the world however a wheat field or a beef property are producing more CO2 than they consume.

It would be interesting to hear your views

NAME REMOVED BY AGMATES.

**********************************************
AGMATES SENDS A LONG REPLY - SOME EXCERPTS
**********************************************

From: Truman Livestock [mailto:trumanlivestock@bigpond.com]
Sent: 19/03/2007 12:34 PM
To: NAME REMOVED

Subject: Hello (NAME REMOVED)

G’day (NAME REMOVED BY AGMATES,)

Thanks for your email.

I have read the entire document you sent me - “Greenhouse Market Mania” published by The Corporate Europe Observatory that you have sent me.

(NAME REMOVED) it would be a wonderful thing if EVERY AUSTRALIAN FARMER read this document. The line in the document that says Emissions Trading will be a 13 trillion dollar industry by the year 2050 is a stand out for me. There is enormous money involved in this.

You are quite right in saying that Agriculture is a NET CONTRIBUTOR to greenhouse gas emissions. The document you have sent me makes it quiet clear that if you are a net emitter YOU WILL PAY.

(NAME REMOVED) AUSTRALIAN FARMERS CAN’T KEEP THERE HEADS DOWN HOPING NOT TO BE NOTICED is all of this, it’s gone too far.

The federal government has been forced into a National Emissions Trading Scheme by the weight of pressure from International and National forces.

The formation of the International Emissions Trading Associations is an example of this. This partnership with players such as the Australian Stock Exchange, the International Petroleum Exchange, Shell, BP Amoco, Statoil and Tokyo Electric Power, aims to create a global emissions market, with or without the Kyoto Protocol.

It’s in the media everyday.....you have the British Government enacting laws to bring about a 60% reduction in emissions by the year 2050. The British opposition wants the cuts to be 80% the greens want 90%.

You have the World Bank lining up to be the Number 1 carbon trading entity........... you have the largest companies in the world, e.g. Mitsubishi, Shell, Monsanto etc lobbying hard for their interests............ you have governments of countries Jockeying for position........ you have world equity markets gearing up to trade carbon credits and their derivatives.

RIGHT NOW in Australia you have our version of this being played out as we speak – It’s called THE NATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME (NETS) Prime Ministers Taskforce.

It’s in the national media everyday that every powerful business and conservation lobby groups are making submissions to the government to protect their position in the formation of the NETS.

HOW CAN AUSTRALIAN FARMERS IGNORE THIS?

Farming as an industry is the 2nd largest emitter of Greenhouse gas in Australia. The scientists have already established this. If you doubt this just go to the Australian Greenhouse Office web site and see that they can already tell you through land mapping how much CO2 your farm emits each year. Now with the implementation of NLIS that measuring is even more accurate.

In the formation of the NETS, AUSTRALIAN FARMERS WILL PAY if they are a net emitter, that’s a done deal.

What should be being lobbied for by the NFF is that farmers should be able to count offsets from “Carbon Sinks” in soil on the property.

This is not even on the agenda. The only thing that counts is Forestry, and the Forestry industry is making STRONG representation to the NETS for their industry.

To be in line with the rest of the world AUSTRALIAN FARMERS should be able to balance their emissions from their farms with carbon sequestrations from all forms of “Carbon Sinks” on their properties. Theses carbon sinks include, soil, native trees, woody weeds, minimum till farming, running less livestock, etc. This would leave farmers in a position to be carbon positive and hence able to SELL carbon credits created on their farm to the likes of the Energy industry who can only emit, not sequester.

Indeed the American government as a result of pressure from the powerful US Farm lobby has repeatedly threatened not to ratify the Kyoto protocol unless all forms of Agricultural carbon sinks can be counted. The Kyoto protocol says you can only count Forests and nothing else.

This is the SCANDAL in all of this. AUSTRALIAN FARMERS are TOTALLY UNREPRESENTED in all of this.

They are LAMBS TO THE SLAUGHTER.

Do Aussie farmers really want to TRUST their fate and future to global Companies, BIG Governments, Mining & Heavy industry and the neo-pastoralist Conservation groups?

(NAME WITHHELD) I can see you are on the NSW Farmers Association, PLEASE TELL AUSTRALIAN FARMERS – that this is not the case!

If not then join me and the other concerned Agmates in demanding that the NFF get involved and START LOBBYING hard for AUSTRALIAN FARMERS interests in this.

(NAME WITHHELD),
I want to publish your email and this reply on Agmates. However if you’d prefer I will keep your name anonymous and publish without identifying you by name.

Thanks again for the email and the information and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Steve Truman

Rural Information, Technology & E-commerce

Unashamedly working to help you make your rural enterprise more profitable!

AGMATES – 100% PRO – AUSTRALIAN FARMER

***********************************************
NOTICE TO NFF & ALL STATE FARMER GROUPS
***********************************************

If Agmates is WRONG, then refute what we have been saying.

IF AGMATES is right - GET OFF YOUR BACKSIDES AND GET IN THERE FIGHTING FOR AUSTRALIAN FARMERS RIGHTS - BEFORE ITS TO LATE!

Either way - DO SOMETHING!

Your Agmate Steve.

NATIONAL FARMERS FEDERATION - Representing whose best interests????????

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:52:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

***********************************************
FINALLY WE HAVE A RESPONSE FROM THE NFF
***********************************************

There is no need for me to publish the huge list of names I've received demanding the NFF take action because we at last have a response from them.

Below is a copy of the email for you to read and thank you to Seamus and the NFF.

What you will find facinating is the link to the report By Allen Consulting completed in April 2006. Click on the link and you can read the 67 page report which confirms what Agmates has been telling you.

The NFF obviously want to get this information out to EVERY AUSTRALIAN FARMER. What better way than through Agmates?

See below the email for Agmates comments and questions to the NFF.

************************************************
emissions trading
Seamus Hoban
Monday, 19 March, 2007 4:30:09PM
To:steve@agmates.com
Cc:
*************************************************

Hi Steve,

Below is a consultants report the NFF commissioned regarding emissions trading in early 2006.

http://www.nff.org.au/pages/pub/ACG_Emissions%20Trading_April%202006.pdf

The NFF has put together an emissions trading taskforce representing all state members and commodities, and is in the process of finalising a submission to the Prime Minister’s Emissions Trading Task Group.

Happy to discuss further,

Regards,
Seamus Hoban
Policy Advisor (Land Management)
Victorian Farmers Federation
Phone: (03) 9207 5525
Email: shoban@vff.org.au

*********************************************
AGMATES COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
*********************************************

1. Seamus it is my understanding that the Prime Minister requested the NFF make a submission to the Emissions Trading Task Group when it was announced.

2. Why then has the NFF after engaging a professional consulting group to put the submission together still not completed that submission?

3. The deadline for the submissions has passed and if it had not been for the Prime Minister granting an extension AUSTRALIAN FARMERS would have been completely unrepresented in this matter.

This is despite the Allen report completed in April 2006 strongly recommending that the NFF be involved in all aspects of the formulation of any Emissions Trading Scheme "as AUSTRALIAN FARMERS are Key Stakeholders in the formation of any such scheme."

4. Agmates has uncovered that the submission is not finished because key committee executive/s of the NFF have been uncooperative in the preparation of that submission.

5. Further Agmates is lead to believe that those person/s have strong ties with environmental and conservation groups and as recently as last week were still expressing their opposition to the submission being made.

This is a disgraceful situation. Every single member of the NFF, the PEAK FARMERS LOBBY GROUP should be 100% PRO - AUSTRALIAN FARMER and nothing else.

If it is the case these people should be removed immediatley from the NFF executive. They are playing with the reputation and livehoods of the NFF, State Farmer Associations, Commodity Groups and 120,000 AUSTRALIAN FARMERS and their familes.

6. If this is not the case, then tell AUSTRALIAN FARMERS why the NFF has been caught flat footed on this issue. The NFF has known this has been coming for years. The Allen report told the NFF not only to be ready but in what areas to be ready in.

7. It would appear that the NFF have not taken not one scrap of action on any one of the 6 recommendations of the Allen report commissioned in April 2006. WHY?

The Agmates readers / AUSTRALIAN FARMERS await your / the NFF reply and look forward to STRONG ACTION by the NFF on behalf of all AUSTRALIAN FARMERS in this matter.

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve

AGMATES - 100% PRO - AUSTRALIAN FARMER

ALL AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - Missing out on a BILLION DOLLAR Industry - WHY?

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:09:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

****************************************
THE NFF IS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL
****************************************

Right now an industry larger than the ENTIRE VALUE per annum of AUSTRALIAN RURAL EXPORTS is being formulated.

The NATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME (NETS) will be worth BILLIONS. It's staggering how much money is involved.

Farmers should be a MAJOR player in this market. With BILLIONS OF DOLLARS flowing into FARMERS pockets.

Farmers ARE NOT EVEN INVOLVED in the formulation / implementation of the NETS.

Every other powerful environmental (anti - farmer) and Industry group is a contributing stakeholder to the NETS. Lobbying for their industry / agenda.

Click on Blue links to see how hard the Aluminium,Business Council and Plantation Industries are lobbying. Click HERE and read about every Group EXCEPT FARMERS who are lobbying hard for their own interests.

The NETS will cause the greatest CHANGE TO AUSTRALIAN FARMING EVER SEEN in the history of AGRICULTURE in Australia.

It is not even on the National Farmers Federations Agenda. See a copy of the NFF agenda here for 2006 - 2009.

The NFF is (YOUR) AUSTRALIAN FARMERS LOBBY GROUP. "The voice of Australian farmers" Why arn't they at the table?

On this issue you have no voice. AUSTRALIAN FARMERS ARE TOTALLY UNREPRESENTED. Why, Why, Why ?

*******************************************
FARMERS WANT ANSWERS?
*******************************************

1. Why is this issue not on the NFF agenda. It should be top of the list and they should be SCREAMING BLUE MURDER.

2. Why has the Liberal / Nation Party SACRIFICED AUSTRALIAN FARMERS by stopping Land Clearing in NSW & QLD to meet their commitments to the Kyoto agreement?

3. Why have the State Agri-Political Associations been gaged on this issue?

4. Why has the rural press virtually ignored this issue, while continuing to run mostly feel good rural stories.

5. Why have we heard nothing from National senators Ron Boswell and Barnaby Joyce (the protectors of rural Australia) on this issue.

*******************************************
URGENT ACTION REQUIRED
*******************************************

1. What is URGENTLY needed is for the NFF to get in there BOOTS and ALL fighting the federal & state governments for AUSTRALIAN FARMERS INTERESTS on this issue.

2. AUSTRALIAN FARMERS as the 2nd biggest Carbon Emitting Industry (this is where farmers pay) while being custodians of the largest Carbon Sinks (this is where farmers can get paid) in Australia and NOW DEMAND that their voice be heard.

******************************************
WHAT YOU CAN DO AS A FARMER
BEFORE IT'S TO LATE
******************************************

1. "The voice of Australian Farmers" (the NFF) is mute on this issue. The voice of the AUSTRALIAN FARMERS State Agri-political Associations if audible at all is falling on DEAF EARS at the NFF.

2. But YOU as an individual FARMERS have a voice. IT"S TIME TO USE IT _ BEFORE IT"S TO LATE.

*****************************************
USE YOUR VOICE NOW - THERE IS 120,000 OF
YOU, PLUS YOUR SUPPORTERS.
*****************************************

1. Email Agmates now at steve@agmates.com - just write - I'm a FARMER, don't sacrifice me for the "National Good". (Agmates will publish each and every farmers name, like a petition, so that the world, politicans, Agri-Politicans and Canberra Lobby groups can see AUSTRALIAN FARMERS WANT ACTION)

2. Email or call 5 other Farmers and get them to do the same.

THEN IF YOU CARE ENOUGH -(you can't leave this to anybody else)

3. Email or call you local Agri-political representative and ask him - What "THE HELL THEY ARE DOING to get Australian Farmers into the decision making process. Nothing less than the NFF representing AUSTRALIAN FARMERS as a stakeholder in the formation of the NETS will do.

4. Email or phone your local Member of Parliament, both State and Federal and tell them you want some action.

5. Write or email your state RURAL NEWSPAPER and Ask why they arn't covering this issue.

*******************************************
TAKE ACTION NOW OR LIVE
WITH THE CONSEQUENCES FOREVER - BUT YOU
MUST ACT NOW - BEFORE IT's TO LATE
******************************************

THE BALLS NOW IN YOUR COURT

Agmates has given you the chance to be heard. Take it or take whats dished up to you in the near future.

You can't rely on the government looking after your interests - look what they have done to you on LAND CLEARING, "in the NATIONAL INTEREST".

Cheers,

Your Agmate - Steve

AGMATES 100% PRO-AUSTRALIAN FARMERS

RAIN FROM NOWHERE - (It's bloody tough being an Australian farmer)

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:22:00 +0000

G,day Agmates,

Off agri-politics today but an extremely potent issue. Perhaps Mary-Ann Wrights comments on rural suicide prompted Agmate Luke Kuerschner from Milparinka (Near Tibooburra in far North west NSW)to email me this fantastic poem.

It put a lump in my throat - see how you go.

The author is Murray Hartin from Moree. My dad was mates with Murray's dad. Murray was a few years ahead of me at school.

RAIN FROM NOWHERE..... by Muzza

His cattle didn't get a bid, they were fairly bloody poor,
What was he going to do? He couldn't feed them anymore,
The dams were all but dry, hay was thirteen bucks a bale,
Last month's talk of rain was just a fairytale,
His credit had run out, no chance to pay what's owed,
Bad thoughts ran through his head as he drove down Gully Road

"Geez, great grandad bought the place back in 1898,
"Now I'm such a useless bastard, I'll have to shut the gate.
"Can't support my wife and kids, not like dad and those before,
"Christ, Grandma kept it going while Pop fought in the war."

With depression now his master, he abandoned what was right,
There's no place in life for failures, he'd end it all tonight.
There were still some things to do, he'd have to shoot the cattle
first,
Of all the jobs he'd ever done, that would be the worst.

He'd have a shower, watch the news, then they'd all sit down for tea
Read his kids a bedtime story, watch some more TV,
Kiss his wife goodnight, say he was off to shoot some roos
Then in a paddock far away he'd blow away the blues.

But he drove in the gate and stopped - as he always had
To check the roadside mailbox - and found a letter from his Dad.
Now his dad was not a writer, Mum did all the cards and mail
But he knew the style from the notebooks that he used at cattle
sales,

He sensed the nature of its contents, felt moisture in his eyes,
Just the fact his dad had written was enough to make him cry.

"Son, I know it's bloody tough, it's a cruel and twisted game,
"This life upon the land when you're screaming out for rain,
"There's no candle in the darkness, not a single speck of light
"But don't let the demon get you, you have to do what's right,
"I don't know what's in your head but push the bad thoughts well
away
"See, you'll always have your family at the back end of the day
"You have to talk to someone, and yes I know I rarely did
"But you have to think about Fiona and think about the kids.
"I'm worried about you son, you haven't rung for quite a while,
"I know the road you're on 'cause I've walked every bloody mile.

"The date? December 7 back in 1983,
"Behind the shed I had the shotgun rested in the brigalow tree.
"See, I'd borrowed way too much to buy the Johnson place
"Then it didn't rain for years and we got bombed by interest rates,
"The bank was at the door, I didn't think I had a choice,
"I began to squeeze the trigger - that's when I heard your voice.

"You said 'Where are you Daddy? It's time to play our game'
"' I've got Squatter all set up, you might get General Rain.'
"It really was that close, you're the one that stopped me son,
"And you're the one that taught me there's no answer in a gun.
"Just remember people love you, good friends won't let you down.
"Look, you might have to swallow pride and get a job in town,
"Just 'til things come good, son, you've always got a choice
"And when you get this letter ring me, 'cause I'd love to hear your
voice."

Well he cried and laughed and shook his head then put the truck in
gear,
Shut his eyes and hugged his dad in a vision that was clear,
Dropped the cattle at the yards, put the truck away
Filled the troughs the best he could and fed his last ten bales of hay.

Then he strode towards the homestead, shoulders back and head held
high,
He still knew the road was tough but there was purpose in his eye.
He called for his wife and children, who'd lived through all his pain,
Hugs said more than words - he'd come back to them again,
They talked of silver linings, how good times always follow bad,
Then he walked towards the phone, picked it up and rang his Dad.
And while the kids set up the Squatter, he hugged his wife again,
Then they heard the roll of thunder and they smelt the smell of rain.

Murray Hartin

February 21, 2007

Muzza (Murray Hartin) has been asked to pen something for the
Salvation Army that can bring awareness to the general public about
Rural suicide. He came up with this poem which I think is
exceptional, brought a tear to my eye anyhow.

When I went down south at the end of 2006 buying cattle out of the drought areas of NSW and Vic. There was one case a day of rural suicide. In fact I relayed to Muz a
case where one poor fellow actually shot all of his dairy cows and
then himself during the time I was in Victoria.

Please read this as it is quite possibly the best of Muzza's work
ever!! Other work of Murray's including his monumental poem
"Turbulence" will be available on his new website soon
www.murrayhartin.com .

_____________________________________________

Thanks for that Luke

Cheers, your Agmate Steve

AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - What hope.....Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:34:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

I see todays article has lite up computers across rural Australia -
Here are a couple of comments I received by email tonight -
_________________________________________

From: mal peters [mailto:@nswfarmers.org.au]
Sent: 12/03/2007 10:03 PM
To: 'Truman Livestock'
Subject: RE: AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - Really, what hope have you got?

Steve
It occurred to me when reading this persons email that if we are only 4% of the population and because of that unable to influence policy why have agri-political organisations. Perhaps he should resign.

The more important fact is that agriculture plus the added value of our production is 13% of Australia’s GDP and we contribute about 20% to Australia’s export income. We employ about 17% of the work force (1.6miliom). Not to mention the reliance most regional communities have on agriculture.

I nearly forgot, perhaps producing food for the nation might be important too.
Mal

_____________________________________

From: Peter & Mary Ann Wright [mailto: @ .net.au]
Sent: 12/03/2007 7:58 PM
To: Truman Livestock
Subject: Re: AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - Really, what hope have you got?

In reply,

How dare you!

Why not put in the subject that all farmers should just give up and get out NOW. Where would the economy of Australia be then? No wheat, no meat, no wool, no cotton. and on and on and on and on!!!!

How many farmers take their own lives every week in Australia? Are you in the business of making them feel that they have even less hope than they had yesterday. If you are, then well done!

You have achieved your aim. Many people only read the first two lines (or just the Subject:) of an email before they decide whether to continue reading. So many of us get so many junk emails we have learnt to only read the first line of the subject.

Your email would have put them off reading any more, AND, convinced them that farming is a no hope occupation. THANKS!

As we say to our children, "think about all the consequences of your action" before you take action.

Thanks for nothing!

Mary-ann Wright. (the other half of PB & MA Wright)

NB: (This is a personal view of the writer not the partnership.)

___________________________________________

Agmates Comment
Obviously it's not all accolades & encouragement when you try to champion the AUSTRALIAN FARMERS cause. Oh well..... sigh.
Cheers - Your Agmate - Steve

AUSTRALIAN FARMERS - Really, what hope have you got?

noreply@blogger.com (Agmates) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:21:00 +0000

G'day Agmates,

What hope have FARMERS got when the people that represent them have given up. I was appalled by this email I got from an AgForce person. I can't even imagine why they'd be purporting to represent QLD farmers.

Below is a copy of the email I got and below that my reply. As you will see I've kept this AgForce person's identity confidential. I see this persons name in the Queensland Country Life regularly.
_______________________________________________

From: (Name suppressed by Agmates) [mailto: @bigpond.com]
Sent: 08/03/2007 10:05 AM
To: Truman Livestock
Subject: Re: Agmates Alert - Breaking News

Please remove me from your Email list. This is unsolicited Email Perhaps you should read some of Agforce's press releases on Land clearing.
We know we have been sacrificed but only 4% of the population are farmers and that voting % means nothing.

_________________________________________________

Below is my reply, which the AgForce person has not answered.

_________________________________________________

From: Truman Livestock [mailto:trumanlivestock@bigpond.com]
Sent: 08/03/2007 11:51 AM
To: 'Name suppressed by Agmates'
Subject: (Name) - Australian Farmers Need YOU

G’day (Name),

Thanks for your email. At your request I’ve removed you from the Email list. I’d just like to clarify 3 points you raised in your email:

1. “This is unsolicited Email”:
Your email address is listed on the AgForce web site. I can only guess it is there because you want people to contact you about issues that are related to your role as an AgForce office holder.

In my 2 emails that is exactly what I’ve done. The only thing I’m peddling is a FAIR GO for the 1,000’s of QLD farmers your organization represents. I apologizes if this has offended you.

2. “Read AgForce’s press releases on Land Clearing”:

I would like to read the press releases on Land Clearing that you refer to. If you could tell me where to get hold of them, I’d be grateful.

I have a completely open mind on the subject and can only present the facts as I find them.

My suspicion is that AgForce and the other farmer representative bodies have been badly let down by the NFF on this issue and I’d like to bring that to every AUSTRALIAN FARMERS attention.

3. “We know we have been sacrificed, but only 4% of the population are farmers and that voting means nothing”:

(Name), unfortunately this is not the 1st time I’ve heard this sentiment / opinion from a representative of a State Agripolitical organization. I detect a lot of frustration in what you and others are saying. From what I’ve discovered I can understand your feelings.

However I’d urge you not to give up. I know you and your fellow AgForce representative know that Farmers HAVE BEEN SACRIFICEDand the real story of why FARMERS ARE NOT BEING REPRESENTED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

But the problem is getting that information, and THE STORY OF THIS SCANDALOUS SITUATION to the 120,000 farmers across Australia.

THAT"S WHAT WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH AGMATES. Let me clarify firstly that Agmates has absolutely no political agenda, it is 100% PRO-FARMER.

Agmates uses the latest technology, email and – Blogging to give informed opinion backed up by links to the source documents, e.g. any farmer in Australia is able to Click the Link in my article Australian Farmers – Are they Second Rate Citizens?

FARMERS can read the 263 page NETS discussion paper or the related communiques and submissions for themselves. This is an incredibly powerful medium.

I don’t believe for a minute that my vote, your vote, plus the other 119,999 FARMER votes across Australia means nothing.

That number does represent 4% of the voters but it does not take into account all ex farmers, people who come from the land (and still have a strong affiliation with rural Australia), extended families and friends.

With the above numbers and the number of people who are sympathetic and empathetic to farmers would be 5 times that number or 20% of voters. Look what the GREEN’S have achieved with just 6-8% of voters.

We just need to get active and get the message out there. At present Agmates is being regularly read by people from Port Douglas to Perth.

We have a big percentage of our readers are people in Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra (interesting), Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. We also have readers in the UK, USA, China, India, Europe and Asia. What an opportunity to get REAL AUSTRALIAN FARMER ISSUES out one the table.

(Name), from your email I think you are ONE OF THE GOOD GUY’S.

I’d ask that you join me and my friends in helping spread the message, rather than just give up.

Mate I’d really like to publish your email to me and this reply but respect your privacy and will only do so with your permission (otherwise I’ll publish it anonymously).

You can help and contribute by firstly contributing your views and information to be published on Agmates for every one else to read (You can do this by email).

Secondly by emailing an Agmates link to everybody you know so they have the opportunity to see the issues that you / we raise and pursue.

So there you have it. I have taken you off the AGMATES email distribution list and will leave it like that unless I hear from you. All the best!

Cheers – Your Agmate, Steve Truman

_____________________________________________

P.S. I never heard back from this AgForce person. Really, I mean What Hope have QLD farmers got with an attitude like this AgForce person has.

Cheers - You Agmate Steve