Costello says "Not me" to farmers on credits

The Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello is now "clarifying" clear statements made on ABCTV last month that "we stopped land clearing": He now says, "The Federal Government didn't stop land clearing, the Queensland government stopped land clearing." Rubbing salt into the wounds of victims Alastair McRoberts and Peter Spencer and their supporters, the Treasurer said compensation could have been possible, but blamed the QLD Government: "At the time, the Federal Government had been prepared to discuss with landholders compensation as part of its policy in relation to land clearing. But that never came about because the Beattie Government unilaterally stopped land clearing and didn't wait to get an agreement with the Commonwealth or with the farmers concerned."
The Treasurer said some farmers could find some recompense in tax deductions for planting trees: "I think, while not for all farmers of course, for some farmers this could prove a very interesting business proposal."

COALITION COMMENT:

If compensation was possible then, why is it not possible now?

If the Commonwealth Government can take over State Governments' control of education, water rights, indigenous affairs, etc., why can't it intervene in vegetation regulations on behalf of landholders' rights?

What is happening to the legal rights of people in Australia under the Commonwealth Government that can 'nationalise' areas of native vegetation while 'privatising' the losses?

Do AUSTRALIAN farmers have the same Land Rights as Aboriginal Australians?

REPORT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN
Right to sue over loss of land title

Patricia Karvelas | July 03, 2007
Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough said that people who lost land title as he implemented the takeover of 73 indigenous communities in the Northern Territory would have the same legal rights as anybody facing "compulsory acquisition". Asked to explain fair compensation yesterday, Mr Brough said the commonwealth had the power to acquire property from any state or person on the condition it paid just terms.
He said just terms was generally described as full and adequate compensation. It could be agreed upon by the parties or determined by a court."This will be handled in exactly the same manner that we handle any other compulsory acquisition - in accordance with the constitution and the law," Mr Brough said. "If any party is unhappy or a resolution can't be reached between the parties, the law provides for it to be determined by an independent third party, namely the courts."