Swimming Pools: Our Children in Danger

In the United States in the period of 2005-2009 there were recorded deaths of 3,533 innocent people in non-boat related unintentional drownings.

Drownings accounted for more than 3,000 deaths between 2005-2009.

There are over 10 million private swimming pools in the United States, that’s roughly one swimming pool for every 35 people! Private swimming pools are often maintained by irresponsible owners, many of whom have small children or entertain guests who are small children, which would explain why a disproportionate number of pool drowning deaths are that of innocent children. Minorities are also at a higher risk of death from drowning in pools, with the CDC recording that the drowning death of a 5-14 year old African American child is three times as likely as that of a white child.

How can such a travesty occur in a modern, developed country like the United States? The answer is the swimming pool culture and lobby.

Continue reading

Sustainable development not part of their plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.

US States Outlaw United Nations Agenda 21


A. Essery

Allan asks the question, “Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.” From experience you will likely get a blank stare because Local Agenda 21 has become “embedded” in law. It happened more than 20-years-ago and people don’t remember how or why it all happened. But, happen it did! GC.Ed@L.

 There are some who read my previous three articles on Agenda 21, “Sustainable Development” and World Government and believe that it is nothing more than an alarmist conspiracy theory that should be sniggered at because it really doesn’t exist except in the minds of fools.  Those more astute readers take the time to do some research of their own and discover that Agenda 21, the United Nations “Sustainable Development” plan, does actually exist and is much more insidious than most would imagine.

State Legislatures in the United States are far more advanced in fighting this scourge than we in Australia.  In the latest move and following the lead of Alabama, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives recently voted unanimously to introduce legislation that will protect private property rights from the United Nations and to outlaw Agenda 21 because it poses an unacceptable threat to liberty, values and sovereignty.  It has been reported that to date some 158 government authorities in various countries have outlawed Agenda 21.


The United Nations put Agenda 21 forward as a sustainable development initiative supposedly aimed at the protection of the environment, but nothing could be further from the truth because Agenda 21 has little to do with the protection of the environment and a lot to do with the abolition of private land ownership and property rights.  The more sinister aim is the complete transformation of the global economy in ways that are completely at odds with national sovereignty, individual liberty and traditions of self-governance.

The ultimate UN plan was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. According to the UN, “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”  The answer, according to the UN, is to control every aspect of human life.

While the average Australian citizen is unaware of Agenda 21 and its true implications, not so the various levels of Government, Federal, State, and Local.  Shire Councils, have seen the advantage of adopting the socialist lie of ‘sustainable development’, but not for the benefit of their rate payers, and the more observant property owners, especially farmers, in our society would have noticed the slow but sure encroachment of local government regulation dictating what you can and can’t do with the property that you own.  Shire Councils are becoming more and more powerful and introducing more and harsher property and environmental by-laws that to most in the society would make little sense and are a long way short of believable justification. 

Australia has been part of Agenda 21 since Keating signed us up in 1992.  So, as signed up members of the Agenda 21 initiative you would think that our politicians, both State and Federal, plus our local governments would know all about it.  Well, you may think so, but try getting any information about Agenda 21, or ‘sustainable development’, from your local member or from your Shire Council and you will be confronted by a stone wall.  Ask your Shire Council if it is a signatory to Agenda 21 or ”Sustainable Development” and you will likely be treated like a leper. 

While here in Australia our various forms of government think they are keeping us in the dark and giving us the old ‘Mushroom” treatment, nothing could be further from the truth.  More and more citizens are becoming aware of this treasonous United Nations plan.   Is treasonous too strong a term?  Not at all.   When a foreign-based organization, aided and abetted by our own government, plans to remove your freedom, your constitutional rights, your property rights and the sovereignty of your nation then that is treason and if our politicians, bureaucrats and councilors are a part of it then they are surely committing treason?

How does your local council shape up?  Are they signatories to “Sustainable Development”.   If they are, then they are instruments of the United Nations that are following the dictates of Agenda 21.  Ask your local Council the question and see what sort of response you receive.

(Thanks to  Alex Newman, The New American) 

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.

 

 

 

 

NSW Planning Review Green Paper too green

Image001Alex Davidson says government needs to do more.

Last
year I wrote
questioning whether the current review of the NSW planning
legislation would recognise the importance of protecting property rights. In response
to submissions, the government produced a Green
Paper
– somewhat aptly-named, as one of its proposals is to add a
statutory right for environmental groups to be included in the planning process.
But no mention of providing similar rights for owners – in fact the only reference
to property rights is in Chapter 15 of Review
Paper Volume 2 – Other Issues
, under a heading “Matters outside the scope of our review”, where the authors make their
position quite clear:

“Finally, we should
observe that there have been a limited number of suggestions relating to the
fundamental basis of the planning system. Specifically, that it should permit
the unregulated and unlimited right of a property owner to undertake any
development. We reject this fundamentalist property rights view because it is
antisocial and contrary to the overarching objective of the Sustainable
Planning Act.”

This supercilious dismissal of those seeking greater respect
for property rights is very revealing, as it concisely wraps up many of the
tactics used to maintain the supremacy of the state. Let’s go through the list:

1. Turning the process into a popularity contest, rather
than one based on reason and principle:

“…a limited number
of submissions…”
. The number of submissions is irrelevant. Even if only
one person points out that the Act provides the government with unlimited power
to disregard property rights, and therefore should incorporate protections to
guard against potential abuses of that power, it is a legitimate point that
must be properly addressed if we are to remain living in freedom and
prosperity.

2. Straw-man argument to draw attention away from what is
really happening:

I read many of the submissions, and none of them could be
fairly characterised as seeking “the
unregulated and unlimited right of a property owner to undertake any
development”
. All those addressing the issue were seeking greater respect
for property rights – the principle that ownership
limits and regulates
who has, and who does not have, the right to control
an economic resource, rather than statutory law created by the government of
the day.

No-one is seeking the right to carry out any development
regardless of whether it impacts upon someone else’s property – in fact, it is
that concern driving the call to ‘first, protect property rights’, given that
the current Act allows the government to violate property rights in so many
ways. It is the government that is
seeking unregulated and unlimited rights
, not those calling for the Act to
respect property rights.

3. Ad hominem attack:

“We reject this
fundamentalist property rights view because it is anti-social…”
Unless
you believe in communism, there is nothing anti-social about respecting
property rights, and the use of ‘fundamentalist’ instead of ‘principled’ is in
keeping with the way some of us were treated when we raised the issue at their
public forums.

4. Determining conclusions first, and then writing reports
to fit:

“…contrary to the
overarching objective of the Sustainable Planning Act.”
 Isn’t ‘the overarching objective’ one of
the issues under review? Clearly the authors must have decided that
‘sustainable planning’ – whatever that means – was going to be the overarching
objective, and then dismissed arguments against it without offering sound
reasons.

Unfortunately this review is turning out to be yet another
attempt to create a veneer of legitimacy around central
planning, which by its very nature violates one of the most important principles
underpinning our freedom, security, and prosperity – a principle that has
evolved over many hundreds of years to successfully overcome ‘might is right’
and the law of the jungle: respect for property rights.

By exempting itself from many provisions in the current Act,
the government has admitted that it has overstepped the mark; now they need to
take that admission one step further, and remove similar restrictions where they
apply to private property. Instead of an Act that attempts to prescribe the
future, we would be better served by an Act that places the government in its
rightful position, where planning is limited to responding to the patterns of
development that occur when property rights and freedom are respected.

It is not too late to make a submission to the Green Paper,
again pointing out the importance of protecting property rights. Maybe if
enough of us do so, they will listen. Submissions close on 14 September.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

A Free Lunch For All

Image001

Alex Davidson notes Gillard's dangerous attack on private property rights:

"And here's the rub. You don't own the minerals. I don't own the minerals. Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource. A resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people. They own it and they deserve their share."

– Gillard addressing the Minerals Council of Australia's annual dinner.

This will have to go down as one of the most inflammatory, dangerous proclamations ever made by an Australian prime minister. It is a direct attack on the very heart and soul of peaceful society – respect for property rights – and little different to the rhetoric we used to hear coming from the communist leaders of Russia, China, and Cambodia.

It's obvious that the minerals in the ground don't belong to 'all Australians' at all, as Julia and her communist comrades continually assert. Most are in fact un-owned, and the rest are in fact owned by the companies and individuals who became the first owner by exercising ownership rights over them, or who have subsequently purchased them. In just society, ownership does not arise through decree.

In order to defend their strident assertions, Gillard and her supporters must answer some basic questions about how this presumptive ownership came about. Was it through contract and consent, or by declaration? Was it through being the first to exercise ownership rights over resources that were previously un-owned, or taking no action at all? And precisely when does one qualify for joint ownership of this resource – at birth; on becoming a citizen, an adult, or a taxpayer? Surely too, if this notion of ownership was in fact true ownership, shouldn’t we be able to trade our share in the loot when we decide to leave Australia for greener pastures? And what about new immigrants – shouldn’t they be required to pony up for their share in it?

What Gillard is really talking about here is communism – society based not on individuals and private ownership, but on the collective and public ownership of everything, where all decisions about the use of economic resources are made by a powerful, privileged elite who call themselves the government. While the free lunch brigade may have no problems with this, in the end we all suffer, because communism stands for the abolition of property rights, and with it, the abolition of capitalism – the very pillars of prosperity, freedom, and peaceful society.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Can producers trust WWF to be accountable?

Dale Stiller discusses the WWF's Roundtable for Sustainable Beef campaign: 

In the quest of others to create an image, Australian beef producers are at the mercy of a cynical business arrangement that has little to do with the realities of science, environment, production, improved beef prices or the best interests of Australian beef producers. The business arrangement is between international titans of the beef trade and the largest international environment organisation or ENGO, WWF.

Any advertising agency can tell you that a well-known brand name or logo is a powerful marketing tool. The panda logo of WWF is an image internationally very well known. These multi-national corporations that trade in beef including JBS, Cargill, Walmart and McDonalds are looking to engage with WWF in a partnership to obtain an endorsement of the panda logo for a marketing edge. These image-makers first met in Denver, Colorado in November 2010 at a conference convened by WWF for the Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

Image appears to be also on the mind of one Australian industry body, Cattle Council Australia, who has engaged in the roundtable of sustainable beef process. Recently on the 27th April in the CCA forum, Your Say Beef 2015 and Beyond, CCA councillor Hamish Munro said,

By not engaging with NGO's (like WWF and RSPCA, which are the more moderate), we as an industry run the risk of becoming irrelevant within the environmental and welfare policy development area and we would project an image of apathy for the environment and animal welfare.”

Image is important but even more so is accountability. Can beef producers trust WWF to be accountable to a beef sustainability plan?  Let us look beyond our known history of rural landowners “engagement” with WWF in the failings of the vegetation management laws and reef regulation. How accountable is WWF in its activities across the world stage in this current day? In seeking to answer these questions let us establish if WWF is a moderate organisation as CCA has proposed.

Click here to continue reading!

Dale Stiller is the secretary of Property Rights Australia, and a beef producer on a family farm in the upper reaches of the Dawson river catchment in Queensland. Dale also manages and harvests areas of natural regenerating forest within the western hardwoods forest region.

 

 

Greens and Labor refuse to support Indigenous Land Rights

RonBoswell Ron Boswell discusses his (failed) motion yesterday in the Senate on conservation groups reneging on their  promise not not interfere in a deal to create wealth for indigenous communities:

The Greens and Labor have today (Ed: yesterday) decided not to support a motion that called on conservation groups in Western Australia to honour a signed agreement they made with the indigenous land owners of the Kimberley that promised Green groups would not interfere with the Woodside Gas Hub project at James Price Point.

In 2007 conservation groups such as, the World Wildlife Foundation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Conservation Council of Western Australia, and the Wilderness Society all signed an agreement that they would recognise the rights of the Indigenous owners of the Kimberley to work with Woodside Gas to create a gas processing plant at James Price Point.

The agreement entitled the Joint Position Statement on the Kimberley Liquefied Natural Gas Project promised, amongst other things, to support the project as long as it was in a single hub area. The agreement also recognises that the Indigenous peoples of the area should have the right to control and monitor the use of the land in relation to this project, as well as not interfering with its development.

However, conservation groups in the area have now reneged on their promise not to interfere with the deal and are actively campaigning against the gas hub despite the fact that the Indigenous people of that area have made it clear that it is their wish the project go ahead.

This plant would create jobs and wealth for the Indigenous members of the Kimberley for years to come and break the cycle of poverty which has plagued the Indigenous people of that region.

Today I moved a motion in the Senate that called on the conservation groups to honour their agreement with the local Indigenous peoples and to respect their rights, as the true land owners of the area, to use that land to help their communities –

The motion read:

On the next day of sitting I will move that the Senate-

(a)  calls on the greens and green groups, including the World Wildlife Foundation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Conservation  Council of Western Australia, and the Wilderness Society, to honour the promise they made in 2007 with the traditional land owners of the Kimberley, to respect the decision of the Indigenous community in its response to Woodside Gas’ proposal to process gas at James Price Point in the Kimberley;

(b)  recognises the right of the traditional land owners of the Kimberley to use that land to create economic prosperity and employment opportunities for the indigenous people of that region for generations to come; and

(c) expresses concern that indigenous people who have exercised this self-determination and accepted a single hub at James Price Point have been victimised, unfairly pressured by some green and conservation groups, and subjected to racial vilification through being referred to as ‘Toxic Coconuts’ in publicly distributed material. 

The Gillard Labor government and the Greens chose to side with the protesters and did not vote in favour of the motion".

This just shows that Labor and the Greens are hypocritical and inconsistent with their views on Indigenous land rights. They say they are for the rights of Indigenous land owners to have a say in how land is used".

If  the Indigenous communities indicate that they want to use that land to better the plight of their people for generations to come, then the Government and the Greens turn on them and try to sabotage their efforts to create a better future.

By voting against this motion Labor and the Greens have proven they don’t want the Indigenous people to prosper and build a real future for their children using the land that they were rightfully given after several hard fought legal campaigns.

Ron Boswell is a Senator from Queensland, and the Father of the Senate.

Will the Review of the NSW EP&A Act recognise Property Rights?

Image001

Alex Davidson stresses the vital importance of making submissions to a review of council regulations to ensure a protection of private property rights:

The NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 – the legislation under which council LEPs and DCPs are made – is currently being reviewed, with submissions to the important scoping stage closing on 4 November. Given that this Act is what has led to the situation described by Damien Rogers (“Does the government now own your home”), it is vital that those of us who understand the importance of protecting property rights make submissions, especially since most submissions published so far have been from those calling for even more controls. One even suggested that the government should carry out all housing development, including identifying and buying suitable land – a proposal they acknowledge as “a bit socialist, but that’s the nature of planning.”

Although the current Act achieves its objects by overriding property rights, nowhere in the Act is there any overarching limitation upon the extent to which this may occur. It is a socialist’s dream come true, and represents the greatest attack on property rights in the history of NSW.

Under the Act, the right to exclusively control property has been gradually transferred from titleholders to the government – so slowly that most are blithely unaware of it. Bureaucrats have assumed the role of owner, leaving titleholders as little more than caretakers, obliged to follow government-set management plans. Entrepreneurship and creativity have been stifled or snuffed out altogether. Activities outside the limited range of bureaucratic vision are prohibited, leading to extremes such as the Hills Shire draft LEP 2010, which not only prohibits any land use not specifically identified, but also most of those it has specifically identified.

This undermines one of the most important, bedrock principles of our way of life – the concept of property rights. From biblical times – ‘Thou shalt not steal’ – to our modern society, property rights have always been recognised as the foundation of freedom and prosperity. Not only does private ownership serve to restrain democracy by marking out limits beyond which majority decision-making must not trespass; without clear and effective ownership rights, protected by law, the whole basis of our free enterprise society is undermined. Investment, contractual exchange, division of labour, and entrepreneurial activity – the generators of wealth – all depend upon clear and secure property rights, and are all put at risk when governments set them aside for whatever reason.

If enough of us make these sorts of points in submissions, they might just listen. If we do nothing, they definitely won’t listen. All they will have to go on is the growing pile of submissions from those completely ignorant of the dangers of socialising the ownership of property. Instead of focussing on “protecting the environment” ahead of all else, let’s make the catchcry: “First, protect property rights”.

Alex Davidson is a retired businessment and President of 5 Acres Now

Farmers, miners & private property rights

John_humphreys Menzies House Editor in Chief John Humphreys looks at Tony Abbott's comments that farmers should be able to control access to their land:

 The debate about mining on agricultural land has long frustrated me. While one side argues to help the “farmers” and the other side wants to help the “miners” it seems everybody has abandoned the most obvious solution — clear allocation of private property rights. As nobel prize winner Ronald Coase explained, conflicts over resources can be solved by allocating private property rights and then allowing trade so that the resources end up going where they are most valuable.

So my suggested approach to the mining/farming debate has been to strengthen the private property rights of farmers so that they have the “right to say no” regarding access to their land. Miners can then deal directly with farm-owners to come to mutually beneficial deals regarding access. Unfortunately, this approach has been ignored by both sides of politics. Until now.

Yesterday Tony Abbott supported the idea that farmers should be able to control access to their land. The Courier Mail reports him as saying: “If you don’t want something to happen on your land, you ought to have the right to say no.” Good stuff.

Abbott goes on to say that he wants a review of foreign investment rules, which I think is unnecessary. But the main point is that the “market solution” is now on the table.

The government immediately came out against the idea, claiming that it would put mining investment at risk and would lead to less revenue for State governments (mining royalties will bring in $2.8 billion for the Queensland government this year). But this misunderstands how a market works. Giving farmers the right to say “no” doesn’t mean that they will say no. Indeed, the likely outcome is that the vast majority of farmers will say “yes”… but only at the right price.

The main consequence of the market solution won’t be less mining; it will be higher payments from miners to land-holders to ensure that everybody is happy with the outcome. Farmers win because they will get the compensation that they are after, and miners win because they will still be able to go ahead with the vast majority of their projects. This means investment will continue and the government will keep their revenue.

In a few cases, land-owners may say “no” at any realistic price. But that’s not a problem. If a farmer values their land more than a mining company, then it is appropriate (and utility-maximising) to have no mine. And if the government really wanted to ensure a mine went ahead against the wishes of the land-holder, then they always have the option to buy the land.

One criticism of the “market solution” is that it is basically giving something to farmers (stronger property rights) for free. That is true, but it’s not a problem. The virtue of private property rights is not that the government gets to earn money by selling them; the virtue comes because a system of private property works best to allocate resources where they are most valuable. Farmers would support this reform because it is good for them personally, but we should all support this reform because it is good policy to strengthen private property rights.

John Humphreys is the Editor in Chief of Menzies House. John is currently completing a PhD in economics at the University of Queensland, where he received his economics honours degree from before going on to work as a Policy Analyst with the Commonwealth Treasury, Consultant with the Centre for International Economics and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Laws of the land create an unjust environment

John MikkelsenMenzies House Contributor John Mikkelsen, writing in The Punch, has another good piece on the erosion of private property rights: 

Justice may be blind, but many Australian farmers find the scales are tipped against them as they struggle to come to terms with a growing minefield of environmental regulations on top of other natural enemies.

They are not fighting the concept of land management, but the way in which their properties can be ‘locked up’ or confiscated without proper compensation. They can be prosecuted for something suddenly illegal under frequent amendments to vegetation laws which can be applied retrospectively. The farmer is virtually presumed guilty until innocence can be proven, often at great expense.

Those who live in cities and urban areas might find this difficult to comprehend. The following events are more suited to a communist dictatorship but they happened in our “free country” …

A former New South Wales grazier tells of how a helicopter zoomed low over her property, startling cattle and horses, including one ridden by her teenage daughter.

She claims this was part of intimidation and threats stemming from a legal clearing permit over a small portion of the land. This conflicted with a later wilderness nomination over part of the property bordering a national park.

Eventually the family lost their costly battle to keep the place they thought was paradise and last year she gave evidence under protection to the Senate inquiry into native vegetation laws.

In her own words:

I had high conservation on my land, endangered ecological communities, threatened species, the biodiversity jack pot! 
I had a legal clearing permit that did not interfere with any of the biodiversity.

I had a productive property, good income. Then I had a Wilderness Nomination over my land. This assessment identified where my family lived and worked. It was on public display for every green extremist group to comment on – but more than that – to physically threaten my children, my spouse, to ring and threaten to burn us out in the middle of the night, out of our home, hover over our children in a helicopter and have our young daughter dragged on her horse.

Why? Because we had a legal clearing permit, but we also had a Wilderness Nomination; two legislations at loggerheads, with a family, and an environment that we looked after actively, caught in the middle.

We were forced off our property, which is now a national park. We lost $2.4 million for ‘the good of the environment’.

Click here to read the rest.

John Mikkelsen is a long-term journalist, former regional newspaper editor (Gladstone Observer) now regular columnist and freelance writer.