Perpetual Guardians, of Australia’s Secure Property Rights.
Commonwealth Property Protection Association
NEW Peter Spencer's Letter To Professor Ross Garnaut. (Click Letters)
Government's Constitutional Vandalism
The legislators are the servants of the voters, but anyone following what is happening to our constitution 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.
Government native vegetation laws slashing the value of your family home - represent the greatest act of theft in Australian history since the dispossession of the Aborigines
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....They take property from their lawful owners and invest it in the state.
The Native Veg Acts are the only piece of Legislation that exist in Australia which removes citizens presumption of innocence until proven guilty
Reece Turner of the World Wildlife Foundation, flew over the Hudson's property in his small aircraft and took photo's of the 500+ hectare clearing, after the authorized clean up of the weed and after rain had fallen on the area. There was water lying on the ground.
He then flew over an area of the Ramsar Heritage listed Gwydir Wetlands and took more photos. He then took both lots of photos to ABC TV and told them that they were before and after shots of "illegal clearing" done in the Ramsar Heritage listed Gwydir wetlands.
On Saturday the 16th of June, after the "Farm Invasion" Minister Koperberg told ABC radio that as a result of his officers investigations he was placing an environmental repatriation order on the property "Yarra". This meant that the Hudson's had until July 1 to remove all livestock and vehicles from the property. He also said that if the Hudson's within 12 months of that date could not prove their innocence they would face fines of up to $1.1million dollars under the Act.
You are guilty as soon as the authorized officer decides to issue you with a compliance notice. It is then up to you in the ensuing months & years to prove your innocence through the courts.
Also if you refuse to answer any question the authorized officer asks you - you are guilty.
The officer is authorized to use any force he deems necessary to obtain any access or information he requires
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
(the act gives them the legal right to use whatever force they deem
necessary) 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.
Federal Coalition Government Stopped Land
Clearing so the Australian Government could meet it’s Kyoto Target
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, were 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 74 million tonnes of Carbon emission savings up to
October 2006, to offset the unabated growth in the energy sector......
Federal
Coalition Government not signing the KYOTO AGREEMENT to avoid paying
farmers compensation
The Climate Institute analysis suggests ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and implementing a national emissions trading scheme today could:
• provide Australian farmers with an income of $1.8 billion over the period 2008-2012, due to the emissions saved by limiting broad-scale land clearing.
Separately, a report to the National Farmers Federation by the Allen Consulting Group in 2006 concluded that a carbon emission trading system which recognised Kyoto Protocol rules could:
• create an additional income stream of $0.7-0.9 billion over a five year period from revenue to farmers from forestry sinks.
These two studies combined suggest that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme could provide farmers an income stream in the order of $2.5 billion.
A central tenet of the Federal Government’s greenhouse policy for over a decade has been to not ratify Kyoto, but to meet its Kyoto target – a national emissions increase of 8% from 1990 levels, in the period 2008-2012.
Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Accounts show that farmers, by reducing broad-scale land clearing rates since 1990, have offset substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions from other sectors, mainly energy.
Official Federal Government projections show that:
• without broad-scale land clearing reductions, Australia’s greenhouse emissions would be 30% above 1990 levels by 2010.Australia’s farmers have been responsible for virtually the entire share of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but their efforts, worth around $2 billion, have not been recognised or financially rewarded by the Government.
Website Disclaimer
Contents of this site
Commonwealth Property Protection Association (CPPA) seeks to ensure that all content and information published at this web site is current and accurate. The content of the Commonwealth Property Protection Association Web Site is provided for information purposes only. It is made available on the understanding that the information on this CPPA Web Site does not in any way constitute legal or professional advice and we cannot be held liable for actions arising from the use of the material.. In addition, the CPPA cannot be held responsible for the contents of any externally linked pages.
CPPA does not warrant and does not represent that information contained in the CPPA’s website is complete, current, reliable and/or free from error. The CPPA’s website is not intended to be and should not be relied upon as the ultimate and complete source of information on any particular topic.
To the extent permitted by the applicable law, all representations and warranties are excluded or restricted and the CPPA will not be liable for any loss or damage of whatever nature arising out of or in connection with access to this website or use of the material.
Links to other sites
This website provides links to other internet sites. These external information sources are outside the control of CPPA and it is therefore the responsibility of the internet user to make their own decision about the accuracy, reliability and correctness of information found on those external Internet links. Links to other websites are inserted for convenience and do not constitute endorsement of material at those sites, or any associated organisation, product or service.Copyright
Unless otherwise specified, copyright and other rights in the contents of this website vests in us, but we give you permission to make copies of the contents for personal or non-commercial purposes as long as the contents are unaltered and appropriately attributed to us. All other rights in relation to the contents of this website are reserved by us.
