Canberra land clearing protest

If Peter Spencer's land is

If Peter Spencer's land is not suitable for clearing as it has value as native vegitation, maybe he needs a paradigm shift. There's money in eco-tourism.

It's a difficult issue but

It's a difficult issue but you were right not to attend, Tony. It seems Abbott and Barnaby don't mind stooping to the level of a man's pain to catch the camera's eye as being "sympathetic" or "in-touch".

It's worth noting that as members of federal parliament, they are equal to police officers in the legal sense of being required to take every lawful measure available to them to report or seek help for someone who is attempting to harm themselves. I wonder if Mr Abbott or Senator Joyce bothered to seek help for Mr Spencer as they attended the rally?

I feel for what has happened and the Howard Government certainly didn't mind egging on the States those years ago. I hope that Mr Spencer is well and certainly wish no ill-will for him. It is a shame that these officials on the other side of the aisle don't see it that way and will subjugate fellow Australians to such a degrading level in order to make headlines.

"Sadly both Tony Abbott and

"Sadly both Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce participated in the rally."
This has to be a joke right? You seriously envoked the issue of self harm to indirectly attack Tony Abbott? Instead of an unwanted internet filter how about a politician filter?

This is a very sad case and I

This is a very sad case and I don't think the facts have been brought to light very well here. Certainly Mr Spencer and his followers have every right to protest, but I do find it difficult to follow the logic of their argument with the Commonwealth.

Firstly, Spencer seems to blame Rudd because he says his land rights were 'stripped' from him without compensation because of the Kyoto agreement. As I understand the situation these are Native Vegetation Laws passed by the State and not Commonwealth Governments. In any case, the legislation was introduced long before Rudd became PM! Particularly galling to see the Nats out protesting when they were in Government when the laws were passed - I don't remember them pushing for compensation from the Commonwealth then.

As I understand the situation the laws they are protesting about have nothing to do with carbon trading, nor Kyoto. But were enacted to preserve native vegetation - remember the salinity crisis where planting trees was deemed important to preserve the land?

Now, lets face it folks, some land is good for clearing and some land aint. Spencer's land, it would seem, falls under the later category. Now I heard Bill Heffernan (someone I don't often quote) saying he's been up there and thought the land was not suitable for clearing. He went on to reject the notion that a freehold land owner can do whatever the owner wants to do with their land. I don't often (in fact have never before) agreed with statements 'The Heff' makes, but I reckon he is spot on this time. What would be the effect on downstream landowners if Mr Spencer cleared his vegetation causing silt to run on to his neighbours property? What if he was in a catchment or near a major water reservoir?

There are lots of planning instruments in place, mostly for very good reason and we should not loose sight of that in the mist of dramatic actions in support of a particular point of view.

Jeepers… you are all so busy

Jeepers… you are all so busy playing politics that facts just seem to get in the way?

1- Were landowners duped intentionally or accidentally into relinquishing part of their property without fair compensation.

2- Our constitution states that Government must pay fair compensation if it acquires private property. Was there a breach of our constitution?

3- There is a difference between self-harm and a hunger strike. Suicide is the easy way out whereas a hunger strike is putting someone on notice when all regular forms of communication have come to nought. (Ghandi Satyagraha, look at http://www.i-optic.com/satyagraha/natural_justice.pdf if you need a refresher)

4- Why is no one talking about the simple human perspective of this issue? This guy is in obvious pain and is looking for justice. Is this so hard to understand?
Why Are we playing politics with guy's pain? ...This also look very bad from the voter perspective!

You would think that certain

You would think that certain Leaders like Tony Abbot when he was Health Minister, would be willing to listen to those protesting in a rational and passionate way, raising important issues such as the plight of asbestos victims. Instead he ignored and ridiculed.

There's a fine line. When someone protests or "expresses their opinion" with the intent of greiviously harming others or even themselves then that's just plain wrong. I think Tony Burke has a valid point. Getting on and solving the problem includes taking such issues seriously esp when it concerns someone's life and mental well being.

thank you Mr. Burke for a

thank you Mr. Burke for a very thought provoking piece.

Could not agree more Tony.

Could not agree more Tony. The level of self harm and suicide in rural areas has been the biggest tragedy of the drought. The issue is with this fellow who went on the hunger strike is that it undoes a lot of hard work that mental health workers and local communities have done in helping farmers talk about and hopefully deal with issues. For Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to attend and hijack the issue to try and score a few cheap points is disgusting.

Lets not also forget that Tony Abbott was a former Health Minister so one would assume he would have an understanding of mental health issues but apparently not........

I would've thought letting

I would've thought letting people do what they please (as long as it doesn't harm others) is a critical part of our rights in a democratic society?

Who are you to pass moral judgement on a man's actions to protest the rights to his land being stripped?

How about getting on and solving the problem rather than complaining about the people who are expressing their opinions?

I think Its terrible that

I think Its terrible that people think they can hold a government to ransom by threatening to hurt themselves.Governments take direction based on rational advice and facts, not emotional blackmail?!?

Tony, Totally agree with the

Tony,

Totally agree with the sentiments here. There are reasons why governments dont negotiate with terrorists who threaten citizens or themselves, because if we begin talking to them they feel vindicated and will then continue their actions, without thinking their actions through rationally.