Barnaby’s unequivocal defence of property rights

 Barnaby has made what is a rare excursion for a politician into a full-throated defence of individual property rights.  This includes his acceptance that any such seizures, partial or otherwise, is government theft.  Let’s hope this catches on. 

He also, correctly, recognises that lower levels of productivity growth in Australian agriculture is due to the malevoent influence of green tape

Joyce condemns rural green tape

Senator Barnaby Joyce will condemn the rising amount of green tape that is holding back our farmers in an address to the Rural Press Club of Victoria in a speech today.

“Our side of politics believes that property rights actually mean something. If someone wants an asset I own they can offer me a price. If they can’t afford it then they should not be allowed to just steal it.

“The community may see it as their right to restrict the removal of trees but the community has not been prepared to pay for that right. If I were to steal property that I wanted but could not afford I would go to jail. I might have a very righteous reason to steal a car, perhaps I wanted to take elderly people to bingo night but I would still go to jail.

“Apparently governments can steal. And this can be done through a straight transfer of that asset to the government or via regulation that effectively divests you of that asset. “

Senator Joyce claimed that regional Australia would never warm to the Greens because they have been the key drivers of a revolution in regulation via environmental laws over the past two decades.

“It used to be that while the environment was important, it had to be traded off against economic and social factors. There was a triple-bottom line.

“Now the term environment has transformed into something that invokes omnipotence, which you must not question.

“That’s seen in so many ludicrous examples of green tape now; farmers not being able to farm their own freehold land, the ownership of trees has been taken off them without compensation and absurd requirements for vicarious environmental issues such as when the constructor of a dam had to fund $1.5 million in shark research to get their project approved.

“It feels like you are living in a Kafka novel.”

Senator Joyce noted that the productivity growth in agriculture had reversed over the past decade from being one of the strongest performing sectors to one of the poorest.

“A large part of that must be due to the encroachment of green tape which stops farmers from innovating to grow more at a cheaper cost.

“Other countries have a choice. They probably view it as one between Joseph Conrad’s Africa and Franz Kafka’s Australia.

“If we keep on the path we are going we will lose the opportunity to be Asia’s foodbowl.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Barnaby’s unequivocal defence of property rights

  1. C.L.

    Joyce has also backed tobacco companies over socialist morals campaigner Nixola Roxon. Disgracefully, Abbott chickened out.

  2. .

    Barnaby might be the most libertarian dude in Parliament. Let’s move him to the House. Barnaby for PM.

  3. JamesK

    Barnaby’s da man!

    Links?

  4. Ellen of Tasmania

    Friends of ours here in Tassie had some kind neigbours report them to council for chopping down some trees. They had to pay $7000 ‘carbon tax’ for the loss of the trees.

    A farmer friend of ours in NSW has to leave some of his land as ‘natural grass land’ for the wildlife. Said wildlife much prefer his improved pasture – as anyone who lives on the land could tell you.

    I don’t feel as though we really own our land.

  5. Samson Agonistes

    A Kafka novel – apparently Barnaby shares the rather dubious interpretation of Kafka as some sort of critic of bureaucracy.

    What does he mean by Conrad’s Africa precisely?

    Why is being Asia’s foodbowl attractive?

    And are not Asians buying up Australia agricultural land to this end?

  6. C.L.

    It will be the number 1 priority of Tony Abbott to roll back and destroy the green fascism that has essentially suspended property rights in Australia. Things of the sort mentioned by Ellen must become illegal and any local authorities or state governments who instigate such policies and punishments must themselves be subject to charges and jail terms. For example, if a local council harrasses home owners on the beach front, the councillors responsible should be charged with a crime.

  7. Matt

    Why is being Asia’s foodbowl attractive?

    Why is it unattractive? Why are manufacturing and service provision somehow superior to mining and agriculature? Typical luvvie snobbery …

    Australia’s food producers have a comparitive advantage compared most of our neighbours to the north. It is more than just our natural assets of land, water and sun – Australia’s farmers are very very good at what they do and with minimal government assistance by world standards. Just what exactly is wrong with Australia being a preferred food supplier to Asia?

    And are not Asians buying up Australia agricultural land to this end?

    Not in any quantities worth worrying about. Worried about the Yellow Peril, SA? The left and racism …

  8. m0nty

    Do the Nats even have a leader?

  9. Infidel Tiger

    Disgracefully, Abbott chickened out.

    Unfortunately we will be seeing that written many times in the next 3 years.

    This small target bullshit really freaking annoys me.

  10. Cory Olsen

    Cant Abbott just copy the ALP habit of pretending to be close to the center (instead of actually being supremely moderate) and then once elected unleash “hell” on the luvvies? ie; small government without intrusions on individuals.

  11. JC

    Good for Barneby. The right is lucky to have him on side.

    Barneby, if you’re reading this please keep smacking these statists around the ears and don’t take any prisoners.

    By the way, dude, these malevolent greenslime filth aren’t just attacking the property rights of those on the farm, they are also doing it to the city folk too.

    If you see Adam Bandt around parliament just flick him over the ear and tell the little prick it’s from me.

  12. cohenite

    Is this Barnaby’s response to our Christine, Bob’s Earthing replacement, who proudly asserts the greens are the farmer’s friend?

  13. JC

    Do the Nats even have a leader?

    Tubbsie Milne is the closest, Monster. Why?

  14. Samson Agonistes

    The terms of trade doesn’t favour food production.

  15. H B Bear

    This small target bullshit really freaking annoys me.

    Thank the demolition job Keating did on Hewson for that. You’ll never see comprehensive, meaningful policy development from Opposition because of that. The fact the Hawke/Keating/Howard then went on to adopt significant elements of Fightback seems to have escaped most people.

    Bomber tried the small target stuff too but the reality is Australians need to reach the point where they throw governments out, not elect alternatives. They are now prepared to do so with extreme prejudice – as Kenneally and Bligh have found out, with Gillard next.

    The test for Abbott is what he does in government. Hopefully if he looks like being another Fraser or Bailleau he can be replaced with someone who can use the huge majority the Coalition will have at that stage.

  16. Token

    The terms of trade doesn’t favour food production.

    Do you even think before you post these?

    I think we need to JC back on the case of translating this bile for us.

  17. Rafe

    The new Taxpayers action group should be able to make an impact in the country, far more than the Greens.

  18. JC

    The terms of trade doesn’t favour food production.

    Reary Bob?

    Wouldn’t it be better to cut the green tape and see how they go anyway?

  19. Token

    Why is being Asia’s foodbowl attractive?

    And are not Asians buying up Australia agricultural land to this end?

    Please explain why either of these statements are a problem?

  20. Rafe

    The demolition of Hewson was the first signal of the extent to which the media and commentators are overwhelmingly agents of the ALP. Hence the label “hate media” when a few people dare to take a different line.

  21. Token

    Do the Nats even have a leader?

    Warren Truss is a very good leader who was an effective minister in the Howard government.

    Unfortunately he gets compared to a once in a generation politician who is a master at retail politics so he fades into the background.

  22. Barnaby is very spotty in his support for property rights. He doesn’t think a farm owner should be able to sell the farm to the highest bidder if that turns out to be a Chinese company. He’s quite happy to tell the farm owner he should take a lower price from someone else.

  23. Jc

    Actually David

    Bareby’s concern is about selling land, not to foreigners per se but agents of various governments. I have a problem for instance with selling land to a subsidiary of the chinese government.

    How do you set the transfer pricing for tax purposes when the produce from the farm would not be sold in the traditional sense as you and I understand it. It would simply go to a chinese government silo for distribution.

    Bar door has made a few spotty comments at times but he is generally on the side of the angels.

  24. twostix

    A farmer friend of ours in NSW has to leave some of his land as ‘natural grass land’ for the wildlife. Said wildlife much prefer his improved pasture – as anyone who lives on the land could tell you.

    My uncles in the Riverina tell me in order to cut one tree down one must agree to plant X acres (as determined by the true believing Green exo-scientist who the government sends out) in return.

    They farm an area that has always been a grass plain since before 1905 when my great grandfather settled out there. Mass clearing never was needed out there, due to there being almost no trees yet they’re now being forced to plant forests all over their farms even if they want to cut down a dead tree.

    I was also told that the neighbour who has a paddock on the highway was clearing part of his dry creekbed and putting the soil around the base of some gums and some “conscientious” driver dobbed him in for that – building up soil around the roots of the gums with nutrient rich soil. He had a visit from the green police thanks to that.

    This stuff has been going, thanks to the Greens (when they were more fondly known as greenies) since the ’90′s.

    If farmers throw their lot in with the Greens now they deserve exactly what they’ll get.

  25. Token

    Twostix, as your uncles will tell you farmers will keep as many trees as possible on their property for dozens of reason (soil retention, keeping salinity at bay, reduced dam evaporation, shelter for grazing stock, etc).

    Only a brain dead city dweller who doesn’t understand the MDB would think farmers would want to strip their land of vegetation and trees, and believe they need to be controlled.

  26. twostix

    Twostix, as your uncles will tell you farmers will keep as many trees as possible on their property for dozens of reason (soil retention, keeping salinity at bay, reduced dam evaporation, shelter for grazing stock, etc).

    When one goes out there one sees trees where they grow naturally: Along the creeks and gullies and around sources of water, etc.

    In the last ten years they’ve been force to plant thousands of trees. Most of which will forever be stunted and many struggle to even live due to there being not nearly enough water for them to survive away from where they would naturally grow.

    Government knows best though – certainly better than a family of people who have been successfully feeding their communities for (as far as we can trace) over 400 years.

  27. C.L.

    Folks, try and avoid being sucked in by Samson.

    His objective is to say something stupid on every thread abnd then have people talk about him for hundreds of comments.

  28. .

    The terms of trade doesn’t favour food production.

    Idiot. Wheat for example is not a price taker because it is high quality.

    Folks, try and avoid being sucked in by Samson.

    His objective is to say something stupid on every thread abnd then have people talk about him for hundreds of comments.

    Much like his literary and journalistic efforts.

  29. Bareby’s concern is about selling land, not to foreigners per se but agents of various governments. I have a problem for instance with selling land to a subsidiary of the chinese government.

    The headline for this post is “Barnaby’s unequivocal defence of property rights”. I’m saying it’s highly equivocal, like yours. If you are prevented from selling your land to the highest bidder, that’s a serious erosion of your rights.

    Transfer price issues have not arisen anywhere so far, and the Chinese own a lot more land in other countries than they do in Australia. But they can be easily handled, if necessary, without compromising property rights.

  30. adrian

    If you are prevented from selling your land to the highest bidder, that’s a serious erosion of your rights.

    so you would have no problem then with state or the Fed gov’t from buying up land and running agri-businesses, mines, etc…here in australia?

  31. adrian

    It’s called crowding out private sector investment

  32. Rafe

    What has socialism got to do with our property rights?

  33. Oh come on

    Folks, try and avoid being sucked in by Samson.

    His objective is to say something stupid on every thread abnd then have people talk about him for hundreds of comments.

    Exactly. I’ve said this on a number of occasions with both Samson and his previous incarnation, Max S cream. He’ll post any old bilge just to get a response – and the more, the better.

    He’s a troll. Don’t feed him.

  34. Adrian, are you Samson? You appear to be trolling.

  35. Thumbnail

    I have written previously about how the civil rights of farmers have been trashed by laws like the Vegetation Management Act which has been gifted to Queenslanders by Labor-Greens preference deals.
    These laws don’t pass any sort of sniff test for widely accepted ideas of democratic freedoms: presumption of innocense – gone. Separation of powers – gone. Impossibility and Retrospectivity are applied wthout recourse for many affected farmers.
    Suri Ratnapala writes on the issue of Constitutional Vandalism under Green Cover.
    The Anzacs fought and died for those same freedoms that Labor and the Greens have so ruthlessly trashed.
    I will not soon forget that my urban vote was used and abused in this way: to trash the basic civil rights of fellow Queenslanders.
    Every urban vote for the Greens will send one more farmer one step closer to that back fence: a journey from which he may not return.
    It is high time to stop this madness, and send both Labor and the Greens an unmistakeable message. Take our freedoms at your peril.

  36. m0nty

    I would find it very easy to believe all these trolls are Bird, including the lefty ones. Even me. Perhaps I am Bird. You can’t spell Phildickian without Phil.

  37. Infidel Tiger

    No way. Bird has one of the most distinct writing styles going around.

    He’s aslo entertaining.

  38. adrian

    Adrian, are you Samson? You appear to be trolling.

    no trolling here. just find it unusual that anyone on this forum would support the idea of government agencies – with their power over taxation and the revenue that flows – outbidding private buyers for private property.

  39. jtfsoon

    other peoples’ taxes, not ours.

  40. Tim Quilty

    Coalition was in government for quite some time not so long ago. I didn’t see them doing much for property rights then. Doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for our new state govts, either.

    They talk a good fight in opposition, is all.

  41. Biota

    I’ve always wondered why the fitness for purpose provisions of the trade practises act don’t get applied to land purchase. Often people find that they can’t build (or conduct other actvities permitted by the zoning) as they intended because of environmental limitations.

  42. wreckage

    Coalition was in government for quite some time not so long ago. I didn’t see them doing much for property rights then. Doesn’t seem to be much of a priority for our new state govts, either.

    They talk a good fight in opposition, is all.

    Exactly. And what’d'you know, right after the erosion of property rights came the erosion of free speech – just like conservatives said would happen. Next up, freedom of religion.

    People think property rights are the most negotiable natural freedom, but the opposite is true.

  43. Entropy

    I would be happier with Barnaby’s views on property rights if I was half convinced that underneath lurks a closet agrarian socialist. He needs watching. Caarrreful watching.

  44. Entropy

    Wasn’t half convinced I mean.

  45. Gab

    I do not need a PhD from the University of Google to usurp my connection, belittle my views and steal my rights bought and paid for over generations.

    He’s good.

  46. Jumpnmcar

    Dancing on LPs grave i think Gab.

    Was he” Steve at the Pub”?

  47. daddy dave

    Adrian:

    just find it unusual that anyone on this forum would support the idea of government agencies – with their power over taxation and the revenue that flows – outbidding private buyers for private property.

    I see. You’d prefer that the government not pay market rates when it buys something? What sort of special price should the government pay? Or should it just be able to seize things at will?

  48. daddy dave

    The headline for this post is “Barnaby’s unequivocal defence of property rights”. I’m saying it’s highly equivocal, like yours. If you are prevented from selling your land to the highest bidder, that’s a serious erosion of your rights.

    Nonsense. It’s an “erosion” I guess, in the sense of a limit, but it’s not serious.

    You already (I hope) agree that the State isn’t really a normal market player. Right? Well, foreign states doubly so. They are even less a normal market player. It’s okay to have special rules for what a foreign government can, and cannot, do in sovereign Australian territory.

  49. daddy dave

    This is exactly the direction the Nationals need to go in.

    For too long, political parties of all stripes have watched as Australian agriculture gets strangled by land restrictions and green tape.

    Mind you, the instant they change all these laws, there will be a slew of annual studies reporting on how many thousands of hectares of land are being cleared.

  50. wreckage

    DD; those studies already existed and were bunk.

  51. It’s okay to have special rules for what a foreign government can, and cannot, do in sovereign Australian territory.

    Fucking A. There needs to be one law for this, and it would take a single paragraph:

    “With the exception of urban dwellings in which they are actively residing as emigres or workers under visa, foreign governments and employees thereof shall not be permitted to own Australian land. Penalty – confiscation without recompense and immediate expulsion.”

  52. Cory Olsen

    lol so much for the free market

  53. daddy dave

    lol so much for the free market

    I already explained why your utopianism is wrong. If you’ve got nothing to add, the best thing to do is just slink away quietly.

    lols do not an argument make.

    Besides which, there’s a bit too much lemon-sucking on this thread and the Hockey thread, presumably from LDP members who resent their turf being claimed. Hence the ‘True Scotsman’ type responses.

  54. .

    It’s okay to have special rules for what a foreign government can, and cannot, do in sovereign Australian territory.

    No. Not in commerce.

  55. Cory Olsen

    It’s a small step from telling farmers that they can’t sell to Chinese firms (due to bogus food security concerns) to telling farmers they cant sell ‘prime” agricultural land to miners, to they telling farmers they can’t sell rurally zoned land to residential property developers to stopping farmers from clearing trees without permission.

    All of which undermine property rights.

  56. daddy dave

    No. Not in commerce.

    Nothing? No restrictions at all?
    So Russia could buy Sydney airport and Iran could buy the harbour tunnel if they so desired?

  57. .

    Yep. That’s my reasoning more or less.

    It is counter productive paternalism to enforce such rules.

    Well said Cory.

  58. daddy dave

    Cory, I don’t buy the ‘food security’ concerns; however as a principle, purchase by foreign powers are a special case in commerce.

  59. .

    DD,

    What difference would that make in either example?

  60. daddy dave

    In times gone past, nations have sometimes gone to a great deal of trouble to destroy each other’s airports and roads.

    Of course, that was the past and things like that don’t happen any more.

  61. daddy dave

    That’s my objection I guess, is that foreign powers sometimes morph into rivals, and since this can’t be anticipated in advance, you can make an argument that they shouldn’t be sitting on key assets when it happens.

  62. .

    Please be more specific as to what would happen.

  63. daddy dave

    I hadn’t thought it through to the point of how things might play out. It just seemed like a sensible strategic principle.

  64. brc

    DD we already have the case where a Dutch company owns the Brisbane Airport.

    If, for example, the Iranians owned the Harbour Tunnell, the only scenario where this would become a problem is if a war scenario broke out. However, in this type of scenario, then I think the Government could exercise wartime powers and seize the asset or at least freeze the funds associated with it.

    Whilst I sympathise with your overall sentiment you have to be careful of the unintended scenarios. A lot of Australian companies own a lot of international assets. You don’t want a
    tit-for-tat arrangement occuring.

    The only possible problem I can foresee is Chinese state owned companies farming Australian land with all-imported labor and equipment, and essentially paying no tax via transfer pricing.

    But as long as there is no transfer of sovereingty (ie, like embassies) and no military equipment, then I don’t really see an issue.

  65. .

    DD

    We can compulsorily acquire for just compensation if they start playing silly buggers.

  66. Cory Olsen

    To be honest I don’t generally disagree with the strategic principal espoused by DD, ie; you probably wouldn’t allow the PRC state to purchase land with the intention of establishing a military base on Aussie soil. (Excluding the improbable scenario of a military alliance between Aus & PRC :-)

    Sovereign states aside I don’t see the benefit in blocking o/s companies from purchasing land or resources in Australia just because they originate in China.

    It gets more complicated when it comes to state owned corporations
    (For example Singtel, Singapore airlines). Look at the example of huawei to see how the issues of sovereign vs commercial interests be handled badly in Australia.

  67. Winston SMITH

    “you probably wouldn’t allow the PRC state to purchase land with the intention of establishing a military base on Aussie soil.”

    Probably?
    PROBABLY?
    Are you some kind of bloody lunatic, Cory?
    That statement has me pretty well convince you are.
    I don’t trust the Chinese as far as I could spit a dead rat. Even the Chinese don’t trust each other.

  68. Tim Quilty

    We can compulsorily acquire for just compensation if they start playing silly buggers.

    Sure. We can just start nationalising Chinese Government assets. That will go well. Quite apart from China taking military or economic steps to secure their interests, how many Australian companies have investments in China waiting to be appropriated?

    Australian politicians can’t sneeze in our national interest without clearing it with China first…

  69. daddy dave

    We can just start nationalising Chinese Government assets. That will go well.

    That statement was made about a hypothetical situation involving military conflict at some unspecified time in the future, it was not a suggestion about current policy. And in fact you’re completely getting the wrong end of the stick: Dot said that to allay concerns about foreign ownership, not to increase them.

    Right, Dot?

  70. .

    Sure. We can just start nationalising Chinese Government assets. That will go well

    The Chinese are not stupid, reactive or even expansionist.

    They will not buy an asset knowing full well can take action and repossess it, unless THEY INTEND to provoke a war.

    What kind of laser beam shark/kill you by slow conveyor belt with a frickin laser convolution is this?

    Since DD has framed the question (really – you’d acquire their assets, that’s provocative!) in terms of a military conflict ALREADY occurring before the asset is repossessed…then ensuring that property owners can get a buyer WILL allay fears of foreign ownership.

    Don’t be scared.

  71. Tim Quilty

    I generally don’t have a problem with foreign investment. But future Australian governments are never taking back assets we’ve sold to Chinese Govt corporations. Before we even get round to thinking about it they’ll be sending a coupe of Carrier groups from their new bases in Fiji on a goodwill mission to Sydney.

  72. .

    The Chinese would never provoke such a situation. If they wanted to invade us, they’d just have a crack. They wouldn’t engineer a war to provoke us to provoking them to justify…a war that already exists.

    They might be totalitarian bastards but the regime is not stupid or a believer in such Blomfieldery. Hu Jin Tao is not Dr Evil. He’s just the head of an oppressive Government.

  73. Oh come on

    What carrier groups, Tim? The Chinese wouldn’t make it over the sea without significant losses. And if they managed to get ashore, their supply lines would be cut to ribbons.

    The Chinese are no military threat to us.

  74. Tim Quilty

    Clearly that is a future scenario – the carrier groups and the naval base in Fiji should be what gives that bit away – but roll forward 20 years and China’s going to have significantly increased capacity to project force in the South Pacific. They’re not building aircraft carriers for fun.

    And more to the point, they don’t actually need to invade, they just need the ability to close the sea-lanes to bring Australia to heel. They’d never need to use it, because we’d never call their bluff.

    Of course an alternate view is that China collapses into their own corruption riddled, shonkily built demographic hole without causing any waves for the rest of us, but that may be a little too optimistic.

  75. Alan moran

    I am a bit perplexed as to why the Chinese would be tempted to invade Australia. Unless we have some raw materials that are unique to us and that we are denying them, they can buy from us everything they need. We wd almost certainly be willing sellers.

    Lebensraum and seizure of booty are no longer reasons, still less legitimate reasons for war. If a country invades us it would certainly be courting more than grumbles from other countries. War was never altogether a rational policy but is even less so now that the victor cannot steal the fruits of victory.

  76. Token

    I am a bit perplexed as to why the Chinese would be tempted to invade Australia.

    When the Chinese get carrier groups into the Pacific, the real threat to Aus from China during a shooting war will be for them to shut down trade through the straights of Singapore (i.e. kill our oil supply & trade). They would not invade.

    In reality, China is less likely to get into a war, but if they do not democratised they may use that power as leverage.

  77. Token

    …China is less likely to get into a war with Australia than North Korea, etc, but…

  78. Jumpnmcar

    Doesn’t “free trade” mean that the Australian Govt can buy up swathes of land in China, if they can do so in Australia?
    As far as I can tell, we can’t but they can.

  79. Token

    Doesn’t “free trade” mean that the Australian Govt can buy up swathes of land in China, if they can do so in Australia?

    LOL, as if…

  80. Jumpnmcar

    Therefore our foreign investment rules should reflect any potential buyers policies.
    Would you agree DD?

  81. Jim Rose

    War was never altogether a rational policy but is even less so now that the victor cannot steal the fruits of victory

    Then why the 1982 Falklands war? why do people not settle law suits out of court? game theory started out to explain war because they was and is common.

    although most disputes between groups of people are settled peacefully, sometimes disputes result in war.

    the ability to negotiate a credible peaceful settlement of a dispute over the control of territory or resources depends on the divisibility of the outcome of the dispute, on the effectiveness of the fortifications and counterattacks with which an attacker would expect to have to contend, and on the permanence of the outcome of a potential war.

    the failure of peace feelers in the 1st world war can only be explained by the warmongering aspects of expressive voting. A person might on instrumental grounds prefer peace to war; but the expressive value of patriotism might outweigh this.

    Simplistic peacemaking can cause war while arms race, credible war threats and mutually assured destruction can reliably prevent war.

    but see http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_11/PThy_Chapter_11.html for a dicussion of why wars and barfights have the same origin in precommitment.

  82. David Elson

    In what world would china risk cutting of its access to supply of resources by declaring war on Aus or more stupidly by declaring war on its vital export markets, ie; the West, USA etc..

  83. Token

    China is too busy trying creating trouble for itself as it bullies it’s neighbours to give it the lion share of the oil in the South China Sea. Add to that it’s land borders with India, Pakistan and the other ‘Stans.

    Basically unless a moron or a madman takes over we are down the list. It is more likely to want to use its power to keep us neutral in a Taiwan, etc “situation”.

  84. daddy dave

    Therefore our foreign investment rules should reflect any potential buyers policies.
    Would you agree DD?

    I would have said so earlier, but Dot has convinced me that this is not as much of an issue as I previously thought.

    If they want to spend lots of money on our shores, then let them spend it. If they make good investments, we win. If they squander it, we win.

  85. David Elson

    @ Winston, admittedly I was being a little tongue in cheek. I dont think commercial acquisitions involving chinese corporations are much of a national security risk…

  86. hzhousewife

    perhaps even, should “the crop” be so beneficent
    that our own citizens starve in portering it
    to the docks, the UNIONS will go on strike, so as to feed our starving masses, and defy the almighty
    renmibi…………….. ha ha FAT CHANCE !

  87. macca

    GREAT Barnaby,
    WA Brendan Grylls prior to 2008 election was a strong advocate of property rights as where many LIBERALS, guess what happened to the DRAFT for property rights–NOTHING– IN FACT SEVERAL FARMERS ARE IN PRISON , MANY FINED AND THE THOMPSONS went back to USA.
    Also noted the Abbott media release on the ENVIROMENT,any minister who stands for humanity first and there rights is worth electing.
    The real hero for PROPERTY RIGHTS is and always be PETER SPENCER.

  88. In 1973 Whitlam organized a Commission into Land Tenures. Resulting advice –
    * it would be good if govt BOUGHT land off private owners back into govt hands, but it would cost too much money,
    * so devalue the land,
    * using zoning changes, user rights removal, resumption at govt values only, etc
    * prevent owners using land and make it worthless,
    * then it will fall back into govt hands through mortgage default, bankruptcy, rates default, etc.
    Sound familiar?
    What most people do not understand is how we own private land, which is under a Grant of Fee Simple Title. That title INCLUDES 4 inherent things as part of the purchase –
    1. the ownership of everything attached to the land
    2. the pre-existing right to build on the land
    3. the ownership of all natural elements on the land, not including water (which can be used on the land, but not owned), but including the trees, soil, etc
    4. the ownership of the right to use the land to create an income.
    There is no such thing as Torrens Title ownership – TT is simply the registration of an existing ownership or action on the private property – do not be deceived by anything that says differently.
    So given all this information – where does govt have any right over land that is signed, sealed and delivered to a private person??
    They don’t – unless you think they do.
    If you don’t know what you own, you don’t know what they take off you. The most profound element of private rights in the world is land-ownership, why do you think they don’t want you to know that?
    Go back to Whitlam’s Commission and remember that prior to implementing that, Whitlam attended a major world fabian conference which promoted the early “Agenda 21″ approach.
    PS – the only lawful proof of ownership is a deed, which govt are now archiving. Try getting your deed people – not your certificate of title which is worthless – your DEED. If you have your deeds – never give them to a lawyer – based on our info, it is the last you will see them.

Comments are closed.