If Anna Bligh wins the QLD state election on Green preferences she will stop QLD’s farmers from treating any sort of regrowth.
Below is WWF’s policy position stated on their web site that Anna Bligh committed to at the start of the campaign.
WWF Tree Clearing Policy - Click on photo to go to the site.
From the WWF web site.
Our position is the Queensland Government must act immediately to:
* – stop all clearing of endangered, vulnerable or threatened re-growth forests
* – stop all clearing in lands subject to erosion, salinity or other forms of degradation
* – stop all clearing near riverbanks, wetlands and State wildlife corridors
* – reward permanent protection of all other vegetation with carbon incentives
That policy will stop the treatment of any regrowth. Productive cleared farmland will be completely choked out by invasive green scrub.
Food and fibre production in Queensland will plummet and farmers will be forced off previously productive land.
In the Greens mode of operation they will then use that as a precedent to have the same legislation enacted in NSW, then Victoria and right across Australia. We have seen this exact same tactic used by WWF and the Greens countless times.
Mark my words – WWF has made its position clear, if Anna Bligh’s Labor government is returned, the Green’s lead by ‘Labor rat‘ Ronan Lee will be holding them to account. …….
Ronan is a passionate advocate for protecting the environment. He delivered funds to create the Oxley Creek Common and championed laws to protect Queensland’s wilderness rivers and to end broadscale tree clearing.
Even if Ronan Lee is not elected in the seat of Indooropilly, WWF will still take Premier Anna Bligh – if re-elected to task over the clearing of regrowth.
Hold your breath Australia ……. and pray.
END
*****
Have Your Say!.
March 19, 2009 at 11:25 am
G’day Syd,
I’m sure that your concerns in relation to the use of farm chemicals and that your assertions have been noted by those that read this site.
It must be pointed out that all farm chemicals are registered for use for there intended purposes and must be used not inconsistently (off label) with the instructions as defined on the label. Farm chemicals and their corresponding labels are registered under Commonwealth legislation, the Agriculture and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1994 (C’th) and it would therefore be illegal to use farm chemicals otherwise in accordance with this Act.
It should also be noted that it is the Chemical Companies that apply under this Act for farm chemical and label registration and not farmers. Farmers only use the tools that are legally available to them in accordance with their instructions.
You should, with respect, take your concerns, proof, or any other form of submission to the relevant Minister for action on your assertions because it is irrelevant and pointless posting here with these assertions if you believe that farm chemicals are being used illegally in your area.
Rob.
March 19, 2009 at 9:47 am
Cheap shot Syd. Sorry that you missed the point of my previous message. Play nice in the sandpit. Best look after your own back yard first and that of other in your own community. You know little about ours and your ignorance is astonishing. Never mind. Contrary to your horrible comment, we do have a good life and we do our very best to look after our farm and environment based on best practices and good science. How about you? Next time you sit down to a meal think about where it came from and the standards of food safety that were met for it to be put on your table. Imported food doesn’t have to meet our same high standards (and just think about the chemical concoctions that they have used to produce it!). Europeans knew what it was like to starve, luckily for Australians we have never known that at least. Good luck to you Syd. I do care about the GBR as well. Hopefully some good science will prevail and some sensible apolitical solutions come out of it – so far no one has thought of anything that is a viable solution. Put some of your valuable time into that like we are and we might get somewhere.
March 18, 2009 at 8:58 pm
> “To suggest that we indiscriminately poor chemical into our rivers is highly offensive (not to mention expensive with a short term vision).” Well, I didn’t say that of course, Guest. But the effect is similar, in this catchment at least. We have very high rainfall in the wet. It’s true that highly persistent pesticides have been banned in Queensland for two decades. But the effects of the pesticides currently in use in this catchment (there are hundreds of them) and their breakdown products are simply unknown. That’s not a personal attack. It’s a fact. And what you call ‘dominance’ is ridiclous. I entered into this one topic on this forum to discuss an issue I care about. I haven’t spent much time here; I write quickly. I have a life too. Sorry to hear about all your woes. I hope you squeeze a little enjoyment out of life. I’ve never had a partner who goes out spraying pesticides at night, but I imagine it might lead to marital problems.
Finally, here’s a very current link about the Great Barrier Reef. The reef is not having a good year: See http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=1240
March 18, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Your point is?
March 18, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I thought about inviting Syd to stay with us for a “reality check” and see what it is like producing high quality food in a highly regulated environment. I fear that Syd’s communist views would not be influenced to any great degree and the exercise would be a waste of time. To suggest that we indiscriminately poor chemical into our rivers is highly offensive (not to mention expensive with a short term vision). A lot has changed in a decade Syd since the last research you make reference to. I would support some real science that looks at the whole catchment and especially the impact that mining and developed communities have on river systems (oh but that doesn’t get votes, farmer bashing does. We are too busy running our businesses to counter argue with crazy people). Sorry a momentary lapse in favour of common sense. When all the cheap imported food that is produced without the same high standard that Australian farmers must comply with has taken over our markets will Syd admit that he was wrong? Somehow I think not. Judging by your dominance of this forum Syd you have a lot of time on your hands. Would you mind giving the husband I rarely see a hand at spraying to control noxious weeds at between 10pm and 4:00 am tonight when it is the correct conditions for spraying to avoid spray drift – then follow up with a full day mustering and branding tomorrow? Oh Syd and to counter your predictable “highly educated” dribble we are also educated people sensitive to maintaining our farm, environment and surrounding beautiful communities for the future – why on earth would we destroy it? It seems that as the people we pay enormous taxes to and trust to look after us are influenced by ill informed minority views such as yours our children may not see the benefits of our efforts.
March 16, 2009 at 10:54 am
For those that believe what they are being told about “farm run-off is killing the Great Barrier Reef”:
From the Institute of Public Affairs – Dr Jennifer Marohasy
titled – WWF says ‘Jump’, Government Says ‘How High?’
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/547/wwf-says-%27jump!%27-governments-ask-%27how-high-%27
A few page document outlining the facts and scientific testing.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), ie. a non-elected international organisation.
Internationally funded in 2008 to the amount of $487million USD
(AEF Conference Canberra 2008 – Professor Bob Carter)
March 16, 2009 at 10:33 am
If you a voter in Queensland you need to READ this. I’d say this information is bad news for both the LNP and Labor.
I’m not going to tell you how to vote , but if you think you have DEOCRACY IN QLD you are sadly mistaken!!
Queensland Democracy Stolen by State Government.pps
http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/qldgovstoledemocracy.pps#325,61,Slide1
http://www.abpac-australia.com/
March 16, 2009 at 10:06 am
Syd,
Well there you go again, just running off at the mouth without really having a clue what you are talking about. To find out more about Atrazine try the link.
http://www.csiro.au/news/Bioremediation-project.html
Knowledge mate is a power full tool, you should try it sometime.
Mac
March 16, 2009 at 9:59 am
Syd,
Maybe the respondants don’t use pesticides like atrazine.
You continue to label all farmers as responsible for maybe a specific group of primary producers.
My property is 50% native vegetation that has never been cleared. Do you want to buy it and have the cost of looking after it, with government hinderance in maitaining the rest of the property so it can viably support the protection of the remnant native vegetation.
March 16, 2009 at 9:49 am
Syd,
I know many people in the government and yes there are nice ones but what im talking about is whole departments closing ranks and refusing to talk. I have gone to the top people in these departments and sections and have had the conversation stop the minute I mentioned graziers/ farmers etc. This is not just me having a petty fight with one person this is a complete snubbing from whole organisations. Why? Well I dared to rock the boat. I dared to cross the fence! and I dared to make these individuals think outside the box!
The meetings on these issues in the NT are rarely publicaly advertised to attract all stakeholders and if you dont know someone on the inside or keep your ear to the political ground, you dont get a whiff of these comittee meetings etc. I attend these meetings/ forums as often as I can. How do I find out about them? Well I search greenie websites and news rooms/ university news stands etc Things that our industry group and many farmers would not even think to do. So manys a time I am the only producer in the room BUT the rest of the people in the room have no end of “great ” ideas on how to manage the land. There never any of this stuff advertised where the man on the land can get hold of it.
I agree with open dialogue and I do agree that farmers are victims in some cases. Far from cry poor bugger me, I have seen friends hang in there trying to negotiate sudden constraints until they are bankrupt, divorced or both! The strain of having someone miles away tell you “you can no longer do your job, live in your home or have your lifestyle” has had a negative effect on many families. So yes they are the victims!
When law makers have sufficient experience, in the science of animal production, management of PRODUCTION land not National Parks and have experienced the way of life we lead. Then they can submit their opinion on how a station should be run.
March 16, 2009 at 4:39 am
Mac, Rod and John… You are perfectly entitled to oppose all environmental constraints, legislation and reforms. That’s your privilege. But if you do so – yet also claim that you’re the ‘real conservationists’ (a claim often made by some members of the farming community) – others are entitled to point out that’s bunkum.
I gave the example of pesticides poisoning the reef. Not one person here seems concerned about that. That is rather shocking, it seems to me. It indicates that self-regulation does not work.
Someone pointed out that the earth is made out of chemicals. Sure. But the complex brew of synthetic pesticides that pour unmonitored into this river is not natural, by any strtech of the imagination. The last time any testing for pesticides was done on this river (one study, a decade ago) it was found that several tons of atrazine was in the run-off that ultimately entered the Coral Sea.
If anyone wants to claim atrazine is safe, try drinking it as a tonic. I’d test it on yourself before you try it out on your kids – just in case you are wrong about how safe it really is (although many folk around here, I notice, are never wrong and know almost everything).
March 16, 2009 at 4:21 am
I’m not on this planet just to answer your questions, however fatuous or intrusive.
If you insist on having all your questions answered, consider employing me as a tutor. My rates are reasonable. And have a nice day
March 15, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Syd Walker,
Taking up on your example of starting up a trucking company -
You start up a trucking Co, purchase 10x prime movers and trailers, at a value of $400,000 each unit, and get bank finance to establish the business. All nice and legal, and it’s just cost $4.5million AUD.
Then 3 months down the line, you have a change of government, one of the first things they do is require that all trucks and trailers must be reduced in width – for road safety.
Your trucking business become unviable, but you still owe the bank $4.5million AUD
Over simplified maybe, but not all that different to what has happened to some farmers that have had their land useage change.
March 15, 2009 at 11:03 pm
G’day Rod Dunbar,
List of some good url’s on this subject:
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/getting-involved/fundlist.html
Funding on various environmental projects in Queensland and other states.
http://conservation_x_environmental_organisations-qld.bdau.com/
List of Enviro organisations.
http://sosnews.org/newsfront/documents/brigalow.htm
Speech by Sue Mayne on the Brigalow Corporation aka Corporate Queensland
http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/2667
Land Legislation Amendment Bill – 1992.
Note Clause 19 on penalties
http://propertyrightsaustralia.org/objectives/david-kempton-guest-speaker-st-george-2008/
Speech on property rights by David Kempton
http://www.wilderness.org.au/articles/channel-country-rivers
Wilderness Society on Queensland Wild Rivers
Don’t get angry, – get even, if the vote shows green – put it last.
March 15, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Syd
You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of “property”.
If your movement becomes the dominant political force you will not be able to start your trucking company unless you get permission from the “committee” to have the basic approval for the concept let alone the activity.
Farmers own their property and its private; it’s been that way since 1660 at least; but seemingly your group wants it stolen and transferred to the “public” because of all the excuses you’ve pointed out in this post.
By the way operating an environmental law firm under the current vegetation laws is just legalised theft see Part 7 of the Criminal Code.
Your groups have a perfectly simple course of action to follow; if you want so desperately to transfer all the farm land to the realms of the public service and the committees so your tourist industry can continue on its merry way, just declare it all under the EPBC act and buy it and turn it all into your national park.
We don’t really care any more about what happens to your lot; what we do object to is the thievery, and we want our equity.
March 15, 2009 at 9:26 pm
For the record, Murder is Common Law and a Parking Ticket is Public Law. Negotiations on both before the courts are carried out daily.
If you own the Truck it is Common Law, to drive the truck on private property any how you like is matter only for the property owner however; to drive the truck on public roads is under Public Law. Spot the difference yet !!!!!
Depending on the mood of the Government and how many votes they need to win office mixed with enthusiastic application and interpretation of Public Laws creates victims every day of the year. When a crazy Public Law is passed targeting one section of society or another the only fools that are found are the supporters of this law simply because the application of the law at any time can be widened to catch these same fools and their property and for what purpose ? A few more votes.
Mac
March 15, 2009 at 7:44 pm
If you purchase farm land were the water resource is plentful (and not overallocated) and then government introduces a new statute that removes reasonable access to water is hardly a pathetic claim!!!
Yes I’m happy to be bound buy existing laws , but not statutes introduced for the good of the community after the land purchase, and directly reducing my equity in the property I purchased, and without compensation.
Get a grip Syd, are you e-mailing responses from some communist country some where?
March 15, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Syd
So you can’t answer the questions???
Well here’s a few more;
How much monitoring for chemicals, heavy metals and human waste including hormones like progesterone oestrogen in storm runoff out of your precious cities?
How much pollution reaches the ocean from towns and cities adjacent to the coast without treatment from just plain human waste alone?
What about the acid rain pollution and its effects on the Barrier Reef?
What about the utter destruction of the native vegetation to make way for your tourism and real-estate?
Why should you city people be able to utterly destroy the environment and get away with it, but you want the right to dictate to farmers?
Where are your “tree police” in your cities?
Why aren’t there limits to how much concrete you can pump into a city?
Can you show me an environmental supermarket where absolutely no native animal or plant has been disturbed?
The list is endless; I think you live in a glass house and it looks like your good at throwing stones.
March 15, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“If the State Statute says you can’t do it. There is no negotiation!!”
Very true. Try negotiating over a murder charge or parking tickets.
As for being “bound by a committee decision that the property owner has in many cases not been allowed to get involved in” I agree. It’s sometimes disagreeable to live in Australian society. That’s partly why I have as little to do with it as possible.
However, if I planned to set up a trucking company, I’d expect to be bound by the laws governing trucks. If I set up an environmental litigation firm, I’d expect similar. If I set up a farm, I’d expect the same.
To be subject to laws doesn’t make farmers ‘victims’. How pathetic is it to claim that? It means that farmers are part of society.
Only fools think they have all the answers, yet the premise of so much discussion here is precisely that.
March 15, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Quite right.
This is particularly because ‘chemical’ includes vaccines – human and animal, water sanitisers, blood and bone, washing up liquid, soap, fly spray etc.
Chemicals are the basis of life. They do not necessarily cause problems for the reef or anything else. There may be problems if people mis-use them, but this applies to households as much, if not more, than farms.
March 15, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Syd,
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I thought that it was disproved that agriculture chemical and fertilizer were the so called culprits for the pollution and that it was in fact the discharge from flooded mining operations that caused the pollution problems.
As for the importance of tourism in your area, how is that the government proposal of making tourists drink, as part of their normal daily intake, recycled hospital waste, industrial waste (including heavy metal) and sewage water going to enhance tourist activity ?
Given that this proposal has now been put on the back burner, for the time being, where are these pollutants now and forever being discharged ? Try in your rivers and ocean, but hang on, isn’t the Great Barrier Reef part of your ocean ?
I hope that your job doesn’t entail tipping cement on good land ?
Mac
March 15, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Syd,
1) I’m not sure what your term negotiation means. If the State Statute says you can’t do it. There is no negotiation!! I’ve tried this and it doesn’t work.
2) When you say committees include stakeholders, you assume the rest of us should be bound by a committee decision that the property owner has in many cases not been allowed to get involved in. These committeees are usually made up of government bureaucrats and “our” representatives like MLA (who are Federal government employees) again I’ve tried to have say again NO GO!!
Why do you think people resort to criticism and complain. They aren’t getting a say via the channels we all expect are there in a democracy.
March 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm
It’s never to late to change the current situation – VOTE 1 for your independent and then vote 2 for whichever party you want. With more Independents in govt the better chance the voice of the people will be heard.
Heather Steinberg
Independent Redlands
March 15, 2009 at 2:31 pm
We have a property beside a national park and I am in no way denegrating the park rangers who go out on a daily basis, work hard and do their best to manage these parks; but it is very frustrating when ‘weeds of national significance’ are washed out of the park and into our place after we have just spent thousands of dollars poisoning the weeds within our property boundarys, as a requirement of our lease. It is a shame when these ‘pristine’ areas are just a breeding ground for feral pigs, exotic weeds and feel good polititians who need to be seen as doing something for the environment. Nature refuges are a lot more practical (if they are not exploited by govt beaucrats!) whereby the land holder still is able to retain ownership but has to apply ‘best practice’ in return for fencing to spell areas, etc. (Can you tell we are in an area that has not been cleared and will not be allowed to be cleared)
March 15, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Too many questions, Mac. I’ll just answer one for today:”Farming is a very expensive operation, are you willing to pay more for less for your food and fibre?” Answer: yes, if it is produced sustainably. I’d rather pay more for natural products than have the externalities of not doing it right dumped on the environment. And no, I’m not rolling in loot. I just know a bodgy product when I see it. Where I live, there’s no testing for pesticides in the River, which runs into the Coral Sea. Successive Government shave been too stingy to test – and they haven’t wanted to offend the famring lobby. All the pesticides dumped intot the river head for the Great Barrier Reef. Large areas of reef are in poor shape. You don’t have to be Einstein to figure out this is a problem. Over 450 different pesticides are used in this catchment, acording to someone who was working on a water quality survey. That’s just an estimate, not based on testing. Have I EVER ONCE heard anyone from the mainstream farming lobby do anything other than react defensively over this? Answer: No. In this region, tourism is more important to the economy than agriculure, so this is not just about ‘greenies’ who are wooly-headed enough to care about whether there’s a reef for teh grandkids to enjoy. It’s about jobs too.
March 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Syd
You seem to be a little short on facts when basing an opinion on jurisdictional inconsistencies (public law vs common law and the laws of equity). Consider the following from a neutral and jurisdictional position, if that is at all possible.
What’s your definition of sustainability ?
Is 75% of your land covered in cement ?
What are you going to do to redress this cemented area ?
How much cement do farmers tip on their land ?
When and where was the last time you visited a sustainable farm ?
When and where was the last time you visited an unsustainable farm ?
How do you pay your rates ?
How do farmers pay their rates ?
How do you pay your telephone and electricity bills ?
How do farmers pay their telephone and electricity bills ?
How do you pay for and feed your family ?
How do farmers feed your family ?
How do farmers feed their family ?
Does the title on your block of land say it is for building your house on ?
Does the title on a farmers block of land say it is for agriculture and primary production ?
Did you pay for your block of land ?
Do farmers pay for their land ?
Can you prove you own your land ?
Can farmers prove they own their land ?
Assuming fee simple, does the government own any part of your land ?
Assuming fee simple, what part do governments own of farmers land ?
Farming is a very expensive operation, are you willing to pay more for less for your food and fibre ?
What are you going to do if the government wants you to get a permit so you can walk in your front door or wander in your own back yard ?
What are you going to do if the government wants to reclaim your housing block for the benefit of the community and pay you nothing for it ?
When was the last time you actually did anything substantial for the environment ?
What was it that you did ?
Were you paid anything to do this work ?
Can you go to jail for doing your normal 9 to 5 job ?
Can farmers go to jail for doing their normal job ?
Now you can return to the first question.
Mac
March 15, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hi Rashida It’s probably too much to hope that we can all agree (and would probably make for a boring world!). But more listening to each other would be a good idea.
This dialogue, for example, is a much better way to go, in my opinion, than groups of like-minded people having hate spats against other groups.
I’d need to know more about the detail of the cases you mention before giving a worthwhile response. We’ve all had experience of unpleasant bureaucrats I’m sure – but many bureaucrats are also nice people. I dont know the situation in the NT, but usually the detail of guidelines on things like land clearing regs are set by committees, in which all key stakeholders, including farmers, have a say. Perhaps the farming reps need to be working harder to get more appropriate nuances into the guidleines? Perhaps there needs to be better education about what’s being attempted and why? From this distance, i can’t be sure.
As far as adequate financial support for a transition to ecologically-smart famring, I don’t think you’d find a more supportive part of the political community for that than The Greens, which doesn’t tend to see the bush as an asset to be sucked dry for the primary benefit of the big end of town.
March 15, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hi Syd,
The key word you use is negotiations. I have had the phone slammed in my ear from government natural resources people who dont want to hear about changing the rules to be more flexible (not just on land clearing either). I also personally know many people forced to sell their dream due to rigid law on clearing that were not open to negotiation. (Douglas Daly). They were sold land and told it was the best farming country in the NT and once they got there and set up and invested in it they were told “nope you cant develop it now”. Once these people sold their properties and moved (the financial and emotional cost was too high) the government then decided to look into the problem but then have started playing cat and mouse again. Too bad for the families involved.
I know there are bad farmers out there but you know what when a new rigid law comes in its not those people who pay the price its the good people that do!
As to the blame game. Progress would be made if everyone agreed but unfortunatly thats a difficult task. (we wouldnt have wars if everyone agreed either would we) For people to change they cant be just told “change now or else” they need financial incentive, their needs listened to and considered and this must come from within their area of trust.
Deep down we all want the planet to stay healthy but to change the way people think you must consider the drivers that have led them to their current behaviour.
March 15, 2009 at 12:40 am
Hi Rashida, I don’t really understand your reply. If there are problems in the detailed application of land clearance laws, that should be possible to sort out by negotiation. If the farmers’ goals include conservation of biodiversity, it shouldn’t be a problem. My comment about farmers claiming to be THE true conservations refers to statements I’ve heard many times, especially from farming industry lobbyists. I’d like to believe it is true, I think it is increasingly true in a growing number of cases, but as a generalization it clearly isn’t true. We wouldn’t have a land degradation problem if it was. I think progress will be made when people everywhere acknowledge that there’s been a lot of talk about sustainability, but not much has happened – yet – to achieve genuine sustainability, That applies to urban and suburban people just as much as it applies to people in rurual areas. But it does apply to people in rural areas too. I’m fed up with the blame game, finger pointing, spin and false claims. We must move beyond that, it seems to me, if we want to keep the planet inhabitable and pass on a decent way of life to coming generations.
March 14, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hi John,
I agree. I was alluding to the Cape York situation but yes most of the time they dont buy the land they just hinder proper management and sensible production targets through a distinct misunderstanding of agri-production.
You cant manage a production property like a national park, the aims and future expectations are very different. If you do then thats like icing a cake with gravox! Its possible but the end result is not desirable!
March 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Rishida,
If they would only buy it instead of trying to control what others do on their land; that would be a massive step in itself.
There are many farmers out their saying I can’t make a go of this property because of all the statute legislation and are pleading with government to return it to the “crown”(community), but they don’t want to spend their money. They just want the property owner to carry the financial burden until they crack.
March 14, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Hi Syd,
Good point mate but the problem is that once this anti- clearing legislation is in there is no distinction between heritage/ old growth forest and woody weeds. Thats why farmers buck. No one wants to ruin the land but sadly the laws (or law makers) arnt flexible.
Ive been trying to get flexibilty in the NT clearing laws. As it stands you can get a permit to clear every plant is sight or “parkland” clear where you leave old trees for the termites. Thats good for some scenarios but a disaster in others. Theres no “thinning” allowed where you break up woody weed thickets so that the sunlight can hit the ground in places and encourage biodiversity.
On your comment that farmers are the “real conservationists” Have you not seen the irony in the land buy-back where people have been graziers in a region since it was first opened to white man and the greenies now say “oh look pristine wilderness! we better buy it off the farmers who had it in the last hundred years in case they stuff it up now”.
Farmers rely on the land and dont want to see it ruined but they want flexibilty to allow responsible management and reasonable productivity. If they wanted a National Park they wouldnt be growing food on their land would they. Money or no money.
March 14, 2009 at 4:24 am
The farming community often claims that that farmers are the ‘real conservationists’. If that’s true, how can any of the WWF policies listed above be considered objectionable? Surely no-one supports clearing of endangered, vulnerable or threatened re-growth forests? Does anyone want to clear lands subject to erosion, salinity or other forms of degradation? Who wants to clear near riverbanks, wetlands and State wildlife corridors? And why would any prudent farmer turn down
rewards for permanent protection of all other vegetation with carbon incentives? That sounds like cash to me.
March 9, 2009 at 11:58 pm
JeffT
Thanks for emphasizing the point I made in my much earlier post. It is deliberately mis-leading to argue the ‘green’ influence based only on the influence of “The Greens’ as a political party.
The other point that I think you raised much, much earlier is that it is only the “Green” political party that can be held responsible for the policy outcomes at the ballot box. These NGO’s are all voice and no responsibility. The mainstream political parties have contributed to this excessive NGO power by failing to exercise any policy leadership.
Of course the voters have done nothing to remedy this de-facto power sharing by demanding leadership. In a lot of cases they don’t see the relevance of a policy or how it may effect them. In this case the short term effect is remote (non urban) and the long term effect (lack of food production, rising food costs and increasing reliance on imports) is a message not being told by the LNP . Why can’t they say this is BAD policy by highlighting the outcomes. Apparently they are too gutless to take this to the electorate so that voters can make up their own minds.
Bob Hawke was fond of saying “It’s a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the Australian voters “. Of late, I am seeing just how sarcastic that comment was ! (half of nothing is nothing )
March 9, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Hi Charlie,
Individual greens would not have much influence on policy by themselves, unless they are high pofile types such as Sen Bob Brown.
It is the NGO’s, the Non Governmental Organisations such as Greenpeace, WWF – World Wildlife Fund for Nature, The Wilderness Society, National Parks Association (most states), Colong Foundation, Earth First, Total Environment Centre (TEC), that have the numbers, the financial backing to influence governments.
The last listed (TEC) group where responsible for “dob in a farmer” in NSW.
What gets my goat is that these people can influence your business and your life, and you don’t have any say in the matter.
March 9, 2009 at 10:06 pm
MattB
A little while ago you argued that the greens couldn’t be greatly influencing policy because they only represented a minor percentage of politicians. The above example (one of many ) goes a long way to answering your argument.
March 9, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I stand corrected
March 9, 2009 at 7:00 pm
G’day Sue,
Actually that is not correct. What the LNP has committed to is leaving the Land Clearing laws unchanged. Which means that farmers can treat all regrowth that is under a certain height (2m I think).
What WWF want and Anna Bligh will give it to them if she wins is the stopping of all treatment of regrowth.
That means if suckers are growing back on previuosly cleared land, farmers will not be able to touch them
That is the difference and it is huge.
March 9, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Doesn’t matter who wins the election Bligh or The Borg – it’s too late to do much about this now.
Quote from Michael Thompsons article http://sl.farmonline.com.au/blogs/the-week-observed/blighs-blind-to-bushfire-warning/1439662.aspx?storypage=2
Unfortunately for rural Queenslanders, the Opposition LNP desperately needs to win Lee’s seat and many other Brisbane seats if it is to have any chance of winning the election. In a bid to do so it has promised not to rollback the diabolical land clearing laws The Nationals so vehemently opposed in 2004.
The price of this kind of politics will be paid not in Brisbane though, but by the people and flora and fauna of the bushime to scream is gone and once again farming interests have been overlooked
Once again green interets win out over farming interests. Who’s got the loudest voices ?????