But one may reasonably echo Gandhi’s words from a previous era:
“What do I think of Western civilization (ESD)? I think it would be a very good idea.”

In few cases – taking Australia’s land mass as a whole – do we have baseline data, procedures in place or even an agreed theoretical basis necessary to monitor ecological sustainability with any real confidence.

Huge changes will clearly be required – worldwide – in human organisation and customs if we are to retain more than a small fraction of this planet’s biodiversity longterm. Naturally, this will give rise to many conflicts with notions of ‘property rights’ developed in and for earlier times.

I suggest there are few absolutes in this debate.

Do landowners have an absolute compensatable ‘right’ to contribute, knowingly, to the liklihood that other species will become extinct? I think not.

Coherent planning and land management controls are invitable in our era – even if they were often absent during Australia’s ‘frontier’ past. You acknowledge this yourself with the phrase: “subject to a fair and reasonable regulatory framework”. But you never return to that rather crucial topic…

I take it you are personally in favour of private property ownership? If so, the notion that land ownership confers responsibilities as well as rights is your friend. To reject that is to hand Leninists a strong card indeed, as ‘responsibility-free’ private land ownership is incompatible with a sustainable future for billions of people.

We need constructive discussion about how to bring about the necessary changes in our economy and land management so humanity’s wellbeing – along with this planet’s biological riches – are better protected longterm. Meanwhile, desirable parts of our cultural heritage that are compatible with a sustainable future should be cherished while we shed what’s not compatible with sustainability as painlessly and fairly as possible.

That’s a complex topic requiring subtle thought.

Rants about ‘property rights’ as though they’re an absolute good are not helpful. They’re already on offer from pundits such as Bolt and Devine, a variety of shock-jocks and numerous unreconstructed conservative politicians.

Why add to the dross, Ross?

I have an inkling of how satisfying this recognition finally, for what he has been saying, must be for Peter. I have been writing about it for three years and have been dismissed and ridiculed by farmers, greens, conservationists, business people, politicians and in particular the State Farming Organizations and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) as an “idiot” and a “red necked radical”.

Hot on the heels of the “enlightened” coming out of the NFF this week on the issue, today to his full credit we have Professor Ross Fitzgerald (pictured below) a well-known and influential Australian writer, broadcaster, academic and political commentator, Professor of History and Politics, personal Chair, 1996- 2002, and Professor Emeritus, History and Politics, Griffith University, 2003 to the present coming out all guns blazing in his widely read column in the Weekend Australian.

Land rights under threat from the green lobby

“THE protection of property rights in Australia is an important issue that is uniting indigenous and non-indigenous landholders. . Both are concerned that in recent years the introduction of vegetation clearing laws, compulsory property acquisitions and, recently, the Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland threaten their livelihoods.

So they are seeking recognition and protection of their rights where they have been removed by environmental and heritage laws, and just compensation if these rights are removed.

One unlikely champion to take a stand on this issue was Peter Spencer ….. earlier this year Spencer became a folk hero during his hunger strike on his property in southern NSW.

Denied use of his land by the commonwealth commitments to the Kyoto Protocol enacted by the state government and denied the compensation that the Australian Constitution entitled him to because the NSW government, rather than Canberra, implemented the land use laws, he decided to take a stand.

He certainly won’t be the last.”

Emeritus Professor Ross Fitzgerald’s influential weekly column is widely read by academics, bureaucrats, those in the judiciary and Politicians.

Land Rights has always been supported by greens, because the indigenous communities have declared that they love their land. They treat it as “sacred”. And they rightly point out that they have looked after it well enough for it to be called “pristine”.

It is Noel Pearson and Tony Abbott who are in favour of mining, logging, irrigated farming on creek-banks, tourism infrastructure – all potentially having serious impacts on the river catchments. Pearson wants indigenous people to have jobs driving bulldozers strip-mining their “sacred land” for bauxite and whatever else will earn the mining companies a quick dollar. You can imagine how much the miners care about rehabilitating the land afterwards. Land Rights was never about the right to strip-mine the land.

If the development proposals will have no impact, or a manageable impact, then they will be allowed to proceed. If they will seriously harm the river catchment, then the development application will not be granted.

Since development applications are just that – applications, no compensation is due if an application is knocked back, so all this constitutional talk is just nonsense.

Make no mistake, this is nothing to do with Land Rights, and everything to do with mining.