State can sell your home

Harvey Grennan
April 19, 2008

THE State Government plans to give its agencies and councils power to compulsorily acquire private land to re-sell to developers at a profit - or, if they choose, at a reduced price so the developers make even more money.

Legal authorities describe as “quite remarkable” a section of new planning laws flagged by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to acquire land by force to onsell to private developers.

“A man’s home may no longer be his castle, but it could well end up being somebody else’s castle,” said Anthony Whealy, a planning expert with Gadens Lawyers. “It will certainly be welcome news to many in the development game.

“Under the current law, the minister is not able to re-sell land which has been acquired or transfer it to another person. The new scheme expressly allows that, and makes it clear that it may be done as part of a profitable proposal by a private developer.”

Mr Sartor insists the law will only be used to ensure developments for the greater public benefit cannot be blocked, but the Greens - who have helped to expose the extent of developers’ donations to the Labor Party - say it could invite corruption.

“Given the whole stench surrounding developer donations, it lends added weight to the view that this Government is introducing the most developer-friendly laws ever seen in this state,” the Greens MP Sylvia Hale said.

A similar US state law to transfer land from one private owner to another for an urban renewal plan in New London, Connecticut, caused national uproar several years ago. In 2005, the US Supreme Court upheld the law by the narrowest of margins but it was widely criticised as a gross violation of property rights and 42 states passed laws to limit the impact of the court’s decision.

A provision in the draft bill released by Mr Sartor last week arises from similar circumstances. Last year Parramatta City Council sought to compulsorily acquire three properties, with Mr Sartor’s approval, to allow its $1.4 billion Civic Place redevelopment. The land would have ended up in the ownership of the developer Grocon.

The Land and Environment Court upheld an appeal by the two owners against the acquisition. Now the minister wants to override that ruling and give himself the power to acquire land to transfer to another private owner, and to delegate such power to councils and state agencies such as Landcom, for the purposes of urban renewal and land releases.

The power would extend to land that “adjoins or lies in the vicinity of” such projects. It could be sold “whether for profit or otherwise” with the only constraint being that in the opinion of the designated authority there is a “net public benefit”. But Gadens says this is not defined anywhere on the legal statutes. “Inevitably this will lead to a purely subjective determination of whether a proposal amounts to a net public benefit,” Mr Whealy said.

Alex Davidson, who owns land suitable for subdivision on Sydney’s outskirts at Glenorie, is fearful of the proposed law.

“That provision, if enacted, will end any pretence that owners actually ‘own’ land in NSW. It will enable the Government to force a landowner to sell … then sell, perhaps cheaply, to a favoured son waiting in the wings,” Mr Davidson said. “It is an absolutely unacceptable elevation of state power over private property rights and will greatly exacerbate the potential for corruption. It is an abuse of power for the Government, when faced with being unable to get their way because the judge upheld ownership rights, to simply change the law so they win next time.”

Mr Sartor’s spokeswoman said it followed two court cases that might have frustrated good planning. The first concerned Parramatta’s “award-winning” Civic Place project.

“In the second, City of Sydney Council’s existing provision that removes cars from Pitt Street Mall may have been jeopardised through the inability to acquire an adjacent easement to allow vehicle movements into a proposed development site.”

The ability to compulsorily acquire land for “important public outcomes” had been a longstanding, accepted practice for Government.

“It is also established practice to offer for sale any residual land which may be left over after the completion of a project, such as a new road or railway line.

“Importantly, the acquisition of land for such purposes would only be authorised after all other avenues have failed and after appropriate public exhibition and consideration.”

Anyone could challenge any determination by the minister or the acquiring authority, including on the issue of net public benefit, in court.

The following downloads were recieved from the Envirowild team and are now available for perusal. (Swampnews cannot vouch for the validity, legality and accuracy of the information contained in these files, but we publish in the public interest)

Inverell Forum speech (doc)

Newsletter 2 May 2008 (doc) 

Newsletter 1 May 2008 (doc)

Flora and EnviroWild Land Ownership &  Common Law (doc)

Tresspass sign (doc) 

From the QoN (Questions on Notice) from 30th April 2008.
Question 681

681 MRS PRATT ASKED THE ATTORNEY–GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND MINISTER ASSISTING THE PREMIER IN WESTERN QUEENSLAND (MR SHINE)—

With reference to constituents who have raised concerns that the traditional common law rights attached to freehold land in Queensland have been extinguished, and as these concerns arose from a recent legal case where Judge McPherson JJA of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120 stated ‘he retains unimpaired, for what it is worth, his estate in fee simple absolute in the land. He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value’—

(1) What steps will the Queensland Government take to restore the rights of property owners?

(2) Are there any treaties, national and international, or any other mechanism by which the common law rights of freehold property in Queensland can be overridden?

(3) Who is the holder of public and private land title deeds?

Compulsory purchase backdown

 
Wendy Frew Urban Affairs Editor
May 10, 2008

AMID rising opposition to the State Government’s proposed planning reforms, the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, is expected to drop a controversial plan to allow state and local governments compulsorily to acquire private land to sell to developers.

State and local governments now cannot sell land that has been acquired from a private party or transfer it to another person. The proposed amendments to the planning act make it clear that it may be done as part of a profitable proposal by a private developer if it meets a test of “net public benefit”.

The proposed change, described by legal authorities as remarkable because it impinges on property rights, is opposed by all opposition parties, including the Shooters and Christian Democrats.

Other parts of the bill were criticised at last weekend’s state Labor conference, including the plan to restrict councils’ ability to levy developers for contributions to local infrastructure.

The state ALP’s rank and file also opposed the expansion of the role of private certifiers in the approval of small developments.

The property industry has welcomed most of Mr Sartor’s proposed changes because it believes they will cut red tape and improve housing afford-ability. But support from the planning industry appears to have weakened after the industry’s peak body, the Planning Institute of Australia, said the changes would not overcome the fundamental need substantially to redraft the planning act.

Asked yesterday at a Property Council of Australia function about compulsory acquisition, Mr Sartor would say only the draft bill had to be discussed by cabinet. “One option is whether to let the court decide the issue,” he said. “The State Government has got significant compulsory acquisition powers anyway, so I don’t think we need new legislation.”

The Liberal Party and the Greens wantan upper house inquiry into the proposed changes.

The Opposition planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, said government pragmatism in trying to get the bill through Parliament was likely to mean compulsory acquisition would be dropped.

“[Compulsory acquisition] is a die in the ditch issue as far as the Liberal-Nationals are concerned,” he said. “It is utterly incomprehensible how stupid the Government is being on this.”

The Christian Democrat MLC, the Reverend Fred Nile, said Mr Sartor had “shown a willingness to amend the bill”.

“The one I feel strongly about is the compulsory acquisition section, but I am pretty confident that will be removed,” Mr Nile said.

The Shooters Party said its main concerns were a broadening of the compulsory acquisition powers, the expanded role of private certifiers, and the lack of detail on proposed complying codes for small developments.

On Thursday the Government released details of three codes, but the rest are unlikely to be released before the bill goes before Parliament.

“It is all well and good for the Government to have those powers for essential things, but this is clearly much broader than that and provides opportunity for misuse,” said a Shooters Party MLC, Roy Smith. He said the party could not support compulsory acquisition at all.

  

Aboriginal land acquisition laws pass Parliament
14 MAY 2008

The Queensland Parliament has passed laws overnight allowing the Government to compulsorily acquire Aboriginal land.

The laws are intended to help Indigenous people buy a home and encourage economic development.

The Opposition had echoed concerns raised by Cape York Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson that the laws will allow the State Government to acquire land and sell it to mining companies.

But today the Natural Resources Minister Craig Wallace amended the bill to allay those fears.

Mr Wallace says land will only be acquired for public use.

Also tonight, Parliament passed legislation banning drinking in public in Aboriginal communities, tightening alcohol restrictions and prohibiting local governments from holding liquor licences.

The Government says the changes will help reduce alcohol-related harm in the remote communities.

Felton Valley farmers fight energy company

By Peter Morley
March 21, 2008

FARMING families with century-old roots in one of Queensland’s most fertile valleys face dislocation to make way for a $2 billion coal-to-oil project near Toowoomba on the Darling Downs.

Ambre Energy Ltd wants the State Government to give its proposal significant project status to expedite the staged development of its hybrid energy plant which also will produce diesel and electricity.

It will spread over 2500ha of prime farming and grazing land which owners say they are not prepared to give up without a fight. They have formed the Friends of Felton movement which includes Bob Free, whose family acquired the land in 1911.

“Now we are fighting for our very existence,” said Mr Free who, with his son Peter, runs a block which supports two families.

“This had been a very nice place until we recently got a kick in the guts saying that Ambre wanted our land.

“Three company representatives came, indicated that other properties would also be required and that the valuers would be arriving. So far they have not but someone in the last week has driven some pegs on the corners of our place which is a bit worrying.”

Mr Free said that while he and his wife were “just about up to our use-by date”, they were concerned for their married son’s future “because I do not know where you would buy land as good as this”.

Friends of Felton chairman Rob McCreath said up to 11 properties would disappear to make way for the open cut needed to recover coal for production of synthetic oil, diesel and power. While his land was not required, it was “right next door” to planned infrastructure which would operate around the clock.

“The project raises environmental issues for us and others bordering the proposed site,” he said.

“There is every probability that Hodgson Creek, which runs through the valley, will become contaminated, existing bores could be affected and what happens to the carbon dioxide by-product?

“We have been told we have nothing to worry about environmentally and that, in the fullness of time, some of the land will be in better shape than it is now.”

Ambre spokesman Michael van Baarle admitted a potential for social disruption, downgrading of agricultural land, dust, odour, noise and greenhouse gas emission problems, although the plant would be designed to capture and store carbon dioxide. There had been a range of responses when farmers learned they would be compensated.

“Those whose properties we need have been told to expect market value plus a premium and some have indicated they are prepared to talk,” he said.

“Others simply do not like the idea of overlooking an industrial project.

“But we cannot buy everyone out.”

Mr van Baarle said the 900 million tonnes of proven coal reserves were enough for 30 to 40 years’ operation and the $783 million first stage could be operating by late 2010.

Farmers to fight Felton Valley hybrid energy plant plans

Posted Wed Feb 27, 2008
Updated Wed Feb 27, 2008

 Farmers in the Felton Valley on the Darling Downs say they will fight plans to develop a hybrid energy project in the area.

Ambre Energy is seeking ‘significant project’ status for a $783 million development which would include an open cut mine, washing plant, gas-fired power station and petro-chemical plant.

The company unveiled its plans to locals at a meeting last night.

Rob Mcreath from the Friends of Felton group says it will fight the development all the way.

“We have to be realistic and realise there’s a lot of money involved in this, a lot of money for the State Government and obviously a lot of money for the company in setting the thing up,” he said.

“So if we’re not successful in stopping it we want to have a fair say especially in the environmental impact it’s going to have.”

One of Ambre Energy’s directors, Michael van Baarle, says it will create significant jobs in the area.

“For construction we’re looking at around, for stage one over 900 people and they’ll be of a temporary nature for about 12 months or so,” he said.

“Ongoing we’re looking at about 200 people for the mine and processing plant.”

Developer moves on to Mid North Coast

Wendy Frew Urban Affairs Editor
April 14, 2008

A COMPANY that negotiated a controversial land deal with the State Government in the Lower Hunter is now buying up valuable native bush elsewhere in the state, including on the Mid North Coast, that it hopes it can use as “offsets” for development.

The Hardie Holdings subsidiary Eco Trades exhausted its bank of high-conservation land in 2006 when it agreed to hand over 7400 hectares of land to the state’s national parks system.

In return, Hardie was allowed to proceed with several large and controversial housing projects in the Lower Hunter, including one known as Sweetwater that the Herald revealed on Saturday had been ranked last in a Planning Department list of 92 suitable housing sites.

Despite Sweetwater being ranked unsuitable for development because of its high conservation value and its distance from other towns, Hardie Holdings succeeded in getting the site included in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy.

The Opposition Leader, Barry O’Farrell, condemned the process of developers doing private deals with the planning minister, saying it locked out community representatives and councils, lacked transparency and encouraged the use of well-connected lobbyists.

Eco Trades buys much of its land cheaply because rural zonings make it difficult to subdivide or get local government approval to build high-yielding projects such as apartments and town houses.

It then hands that land over to the government for park reserves in return for permission to build in areas previously excluded from urban planning strategies.

Planning approvals increase the value of the land, which Hardie usually on sells to developers.

In 2005 Hardie recruited the manager of the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation’s Threatened Species Unit, Robert Humphries, to target the kind of high-conservation land the Government wanted to include in the national parks system.

After joining Eco Trades, Mr Humphries was appointed by the Government to a ministerial reference group on “biobanking”, as a representative of the NSW Urban Task Force, a developer lobby group.

Biobanking allows developers to offset damage done to plants and animals by their building projects by agreeing to protect sensitive land elsewhere.

Hardie’s chairman and founder, Duncan Hardie, declined to comment but the Eco Trades website says it now manages 25 properties totalling nearly 20,000 hectares of valuable native bushland.

Some of the more recent land purchases have been on the Mid North Coast, a region the Government expects will attract an additional 91,000 people over the next 25 years, who will need a further 58,400 dwellings.

Hardie Holdings also has land at North Arm Cove, a little-known hamlet near Port Stephens, the Total Environment Centre says.

The Department of Planning’s draft regional strategy, now on public exhibition, identifies three areas as problematic because they are either flood-prone, environmentally sensitive or lack infrastructure. They include West Yamba, South West Rocks and North Arm Cove.

However, the department said North Arm Cove was worth considering for development because “of potentially significant proposed environmental offsets associated with an adjacent proposal”.

This is despite indications from the local Great Lakes Council that it was unlikely to remove the rural zoning at North Arm Cove.

TAKING YOUR LAND FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS

Joyce Morrison
July 30, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Land acquisitions in our local communities are not necessarily real estate transactions between two willing parties but are sometimes classified as controls and “takings.” They come in many forms other than a deeded sale of property.

If we were to put a jigsaw puzzle together with each piece representing a “controlling program,” we could see how close the puzzle is to being complete.

Each puzzle piece would be a designation to take private ownership of property away from the people of the United States. The property would be obtained by purchase or control.

The first piece is a big one, as it is the land belonging to the government. Federal, state and local governments now own over 40% of the land in the United States and are steadily buying more. Non-taxable land trusts and environmental groups are purchasing millions of acres using government grants, adding to the government property no longer owned by individuals.

The plan is to have 50% of the United States as wilderness where no people can live. This land is to be for animals only. The plan would be laughable if it were not actually happening. Every day we see grants used for the purchase of more open space and parks which are taking private lands out of private ownership forever.

Words such as “wildlands” or “wilderness areas,” “biosphere reserves,” “buffer zones,” “corridors,” and “core” are all part of the land acquisition scheme. These terms sound intriguing until we understand that their implementation is unconstitutional.

One part of the plan is the reintroduction of wild animals, which is happening throughout the United States. As a result, man has created an imbalance in nature resulting in too many deer. Now wolves and large cats are being released to control the deer.

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) was created in 1983 to lead the recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 states.

Coyotes, wolves, panthers, and other wild animals already threaten the poor domestic and livestock animals. In some areas, people are afraid to go outside or leave their animals unattended. Would hese people be forced to abandon rural life and move into the city if the Second Amendment were taken away and a man could not protect his family and property?

Invasive Species is another piece that would connect to the big piece of the puzzle. Plants and animals that were brought from other countries after the arrival in 1492 by Columbus are considered “invasive.”

Most domestic pets, cows, and other animals and vegetables such as tomatoes were brought here from other countries when America was being settled. It is an unbelievable thought to have no pets, cattle, or other livestock and food plants. The “visioning process” would have them replaced with bear, buffalo, deer, elk, and native animals and prairie grass.

Not being able to raise the plants and animals of your choice, but to have them replaced with wild animals is another acquisition of your property.

Endangered Species is a big piece to that puzzle. Plants and animals can be listed as “endangered” without proof they really are endangered. If an endangered species is reported found on your property, you have virtually lost the rights to your property. This tactic is being used to keep the people off public lands as well as to take acquisition of property without having to pay for it.

Heritage Areas areas are very “luring” puzzle pieces. Heritage areas sound patriotic because we are proud of America’s heritage and we want to preserve our past. Certain parts of our rich heritage should be preserved, but then we realize many of the preservation areas targeted are privately owned property - and it could be your property. Heritage areas will now come under extreme regulations and control - forever. Another “takings.”

Viewsheds are an interesting piece to the puzzle. Who owns the pretty view? The property owner or the viewer of the property? If you own something that is not pretty in the viewshed, “they” can figure a way to remove the clutter, and it just might be your home they consider as clutter.

In one particular viewshed, the houses must be a brown color with a green roof so they blend with the trees. In another viewshed, they want the houses and farm buildings removed.

Telecommunication towers and signs are the first visuals to be eliminated. If they can’t own it, they will control it.

Conservation Easements are an environmentalist’s delight to get you to sign your property over while making you think you still own it. You think it is for preservation, but somewhere down the road someone might be enjoying a large return on your life’s investment. Who will want to buy the rest of your property with an attachment to the deed that is attached forever? Your banker won’t think the rest of your property a very good financial risk as there is no longer a clear title.

Wetlands are everywhere, and this puzzle piece has an interesting shape. The U.S. signed a world treaty in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, and now we must comply with regulations of wetlands. You may not know you own a wetland, but you will if you try to drain or fill it in to build a home or use your property. In Illinois, legislation is proposing a $10,000 per day fine for violations. This is another way to acquire your property without buying it. It is called “takings.”

Smart Growth is the design for cities that will be built with stacked housing. City dwellers will live with zoning regulations that will control their property by design.

Using the ploy of urban sprawl, Smart Growth plans will draw a line around a city and people will live in sustainable communities in stacked housing within the circle where all their needs are contained within walking or bicycling distance.

For longer trips, mass transit will be available but how close will it come to the passenger’s desired destination?

Does this sound like a world for the survival of the “fittest?” Are you aware of zero population growth measures? Rural cleansing will push more people into the cities, causing more congestion with the added populations.

Sustainable Development is a means to control almost everything. President Clinton passed the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), which was kicked off in 1992 from the United Nation’s Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro. The Government printing office (GPO) printed a stack of books on the subject, and our bureaus are using them to implement their goals. Our education system reeks with sustainable materials. Put the word “sustainable” in a search engine and see where it leads you.

River navigation and commerce are another major part of the puzzle’s acquisition efforts. The environmentalists want the dams and levees removed. The levees protect thousands of acres of rich farmland and the dams control the water levels for barge traffic and other navigation. “They” say it is because of fish that the water must flow free. In reality, these changes will control the buffers and corridors along the rivers, which are privately owned, as well as economically destroying the heartland of our nation.

Watersheds and storm water control puts huge pieces into the puzzle. The Mississippi River watershed comprises 41% of the area of the contiguous 48 states. Everyone lives in a watershed. A watershed is anywhere a drop of water falls. In some areas they are already imposing “rain taxes.” No one will escape the regulations placed in a watershed district.

Tourism is a also a piece. Millions of dollars are poured into promoting tourism, but can the people who sell the trinkets make a living? In most areas tourism represents seasonal jobs that are part time with low pay and no benefits. Industry and factories are becoming “endangered work areas” and tourism is to be the replacement - but it is not working, and poor people are easily controlled.

Eminent Domain is the wildcard piece to fit into the puzzle when all other methods fail. The United States and state constitutions limit the power of eminent domain in two ways. For any property taken, the government must pay “just compensation.”

Secondly, the government could take property only for “public use.” Public use would be thought to be military bases, highways, bridges, prisons, courts and buildings for public proceedings. These were to be minimal acquisitions not meant for financial gain by the government.

Eminent Domain and quick take powers are now being used and abused to take property from folks who have lived in their homes for 50 years to be turned over to development agencies to build casinos, large stores or for other economical gains.

Stand back and take a good look at the puzzle from a distance. What pieces do you see that are still missing? Do you see pieces of the puzzle falling into place in your community?

© 2004 Joyce Morrison - All Rights Reserved

Joyce Morrison is a weekly columnist and news reporter for the Illinoisleader.com, an online conservative news source. She also writes for SOWER magazine, NewsWithViews.com, as well as various other publications. She is a weekly participant on the teleconference of the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank and is a pro-life, pro-family activist.

Morrison attempts to educate the public regarding the dangers coming to their local communities through Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 programs which are designed to gradually take control of all private property through undue regulations.

She is a chapter leader for Concerned Women for America as well as Secretary to the Board of Directors of Rural Restoration/ADOPT Mission, a national farm ministry located in Sikeston, MO. FarmersRuralRestoration.com. Her most enjoyable time is spent teaching a senior adult Sunday School class which is a focus on hope and encouragement.

E-Mail: dayspring365@yahoo.com

Housing power play


John McCarthy
Urban Affairs Editor

1 FEB 2008
(Not available online- pdf image provided)

Planning super-authority has muscle to determine rates, write laws and ban pets.

Higher council rates in new developments and even a ban on pets in some areas have been proposed as a new super-regulator prepares a massive shake-up of development and housing in Queensland.

The State Government’s Urban Land Development Authority has been given sweeping powers to reform the industry, streamline the development process, co-ordinate development and introduce affordable housing in five key areas. Bowen Hills, Hamilton Northshore, Mackay showgrounds, Woolloongabba and Fitzgibbon.

Both the authority and a developer will be able to write their own by-laws, open and close roads, levy their own rates and cut councils out of the planning process in designated areas, all without being elected.

ULDA chief executive Paul Eagles said his mandate included tackling home affordability and one psossible strategy would be imposing a special rates levy on residents in new developments to pay for infrastructure.

The cost would be spread over 10 or 20 years and subsequent property owners, reducing upfront costs.

A possible pet ban could be imposed in environmentally sensitive developments, such as Fitzgibbon in Brisbane’s north, to protect wildlife.

Mr Eagles said it would consult widely but agreed there was no right of appeal to ULDA decisions.

“Even though it would appear we have unbridled power, it is just an appearance,” he said, ” At the end of the day, if we use it incorrectly, we will not be allowed to continue.”

Only weeks before it gets the boundaries for its first scheme at Bowen Hills, Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said the ULDA was another power grab by the State Government. He condemned it as “a judge, jury and executioner” and warned of massive protests.

“Because it’s not democratic it can do what it likes,” Cr Newman said.

“If people don’t like the way I do things they can kick me out.

“We are democratically elected and accountable.

“This organisation is not. It cuts the community out of planning.”

The government is expected to hand down the boundaries for the Bowen Hills redevopment by the end of March and it may include the Exhibition Grounds. So wide and varied are his new powers, Mr Eagles said he did not know why his staff would need the power to enter buildings without a warrant.

“What we have asked to do in our areas is put in place systems that streamline it and make things happen,” Mr Eagles said.

Anti-fire sale laws too late for Joan



Emma Heard

December 06, 2008

AS her Sunshine Coast hinterland property goes under the hammer today, 81-year-old Joan George finds little comfort in new Queensland laws cracking down on mortgage fire sales.

In light of the global financial crisis, the groundbreaking legislation was rushed through Queensland parliament this week to protect vulnerable land owners, such as Ms George and her son Matthew, from losing equity when their properties are repossessed. The Georges’ 24ha block will be auctioned today.

Mr George said the property had received limited and unflattering advertising designed to attract only bargain-hunters, potentially leaving him with little to no equity.

The property was valued in May at $760,000 but Mr George believes the auction will not yield an appropriate sale price as the property has not been adequately advertised.

“The property was only advertised locally for six weeks, I understand that (the mortgage company) have valued our property at around $600,000,” he said. “I believe they are conducting a fire sale and are only looking out for their own interests.”

Under the new laws, fines for mortgagees who unfairly sell repossessed properties for below market value will be increased from $150 to $20,000.

Queensland is the first state to introduce such laws despite a wave of repossessions across Australia as home owners struggle in the face of the financial crisis.

But it is too little too late for the Georges, from Eudlo on the Sunshine Coast north of Brisbane.

Mr George took out a loan on the property to build a house on another piece of land and support himself and his mother while he acted as her carer. They live next door in a caravan on a 2ha block.

Mr George was working as an IT professional in the UK when his mother suffered a brain aneurism. Despite Mr George’s efforts to work part-time and refinance the debt, the property, which the pair co-own, is now in the hands of the mortgage company after Mr George failed to make repayments since July.

Mr George and his mother are two of the many Australians who are at risk of such treatment from their mortgagees.

Fitch Ratings data released last week showed a doubling in mortgage defaults in Queensland in the past four months.

Before introducing the legislation to parliament, Premier Anna Bligh said she was aware of the financial challenges many Queenslanders were experiencing. “I know that for some the very real prospect of losing their homes is keeping (many people) awake at night as they struggle tomake their repayment,” Ms Bligh said.

“The only thing worse than the prospect of losing your home is the concern that your financial institution could sell your property quickly and at below market value just to cover outstanding debts, leaving you with nothing.”

Caxton Legal Centre lawyer Scott McDougall, who is representing Mr George, said the new legislation was a step in the right direction but more needed to be done to protect home owners across Australia.

“We hope that these strong new penalties for breaches, from what is currently a $150 fine to up to $20,000 for offences occurring after January 1, 2009, is especially welcomed,” Mr McDougall said.

“There needs to be further regulations and further pressure to develop the regulations.”
Story

Herald Sun

Deb McLeish arrested in north south pipe protest

Staff writers

September 24, 2008

A FARMER protesting against the Sugarloaf pipeline has been arrested and dragged from her land as she blocked water officials.

Debra McLeish, 50, was taken away by police after she repeatedly denied the officials access to her family farm in Yea, north of Melbourne.

The McLeish family, construction workers and water officials were involved in a stand off with police and water officials since 10.30am.

Ms McLeish’s sister Trudy Birchall said police had stormed onto their property using ladders to scale fences.

“It is horrendous, my sister was dragged off our property and arrested for obstructing the Water Act,” Ms Birchall said.

“They are walking all over our property and it makes us sick to the stomach.

“The horses are going nuts, police are everywhere, you would think we were criminals.

“This is totally foreign to us, as we are law abiding citizens and just trying to stand up for our rights.”

The farm is on the route of the $750 million Sugarloaf Pipeline project, designed to bring 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne through a pipe linking the Goulburn River to the Sugarloaf Reservoir.

Ms Birchall said her wheelchair bound 80-year-old mother, the owner of the farm, was very distressed by people barging in on her land.

“People kept saying how bad Mrs Brumby was going to feel when people threatened to storm her property a few months back, well how does my 80-year-old mother feel?”

In July Plug-the-Pipe protestors planned to invade the premier’s property near Bendigo, to protest over the proposed pipeline to pump water from the state’s north to Melbourne.

They called off the protest after police advised them not to go ahead with the plan.

“Protesting Mrs Brumby’s property was nothing compared to what is happening to us,” Ms Birchall said.

“It is not just one visit that is over in a day, this insane project will go on for months on our land.”

Ms Birchall vowed her family and friends would continue fighting and hold their ground.

“It is just criminal and they have no respect. We have to keep fighting because this is our land. The pipeline is such a flawed project as there is no water to put into it and it will ruin our properties.”

Plug the Pipe spokeswoman and Yea farmer Jan Beer said 15-20 police had been called to the property when Ms McLeish refused to allow the Melbourne Water officials onto her land.

Ms Beer said dozens of water officials were now “swarming” across the farm.

“We kept them off (the property) until about 1pm and they came back with massive amounts of police and said they were coming on,” she said.

“Police simply grabbed (Ms McLeish) by the arms and took her off.

“We’re all extremely upset.”

Ms Beer said pipeline officials were entering farms on the pretence of biosecurity measures, but they had never supplied the appropriate documents.

“It’s an absolute disgrace … we have no water to give,” she said.

A Victoria Police spokesman said a 50-year-old woman was taken into custody about 1.40pm for continuing to obstruct a member of the water authority, and released soon after.

He said it was up to the water authority to pursue charges against her under the Water Act.

The Victoria government says the north-south pipe is a vital part of the government’s water plan and without it Melbourne would be at a real risk of running out of water in the future.

The project is funded by Melbourne Water in addition to its $300 million contribution to the Food Bowl Modernisation Project.

The balance of the irrigation modernisation project will be funded by $600 million from the Victorian government, $100 million from Goulburn Murray Water and up to $1 billion from the federal government.

Premier John Brumby appealed for calm from farmers.

“Obviously I urge those landowners to comply and cooperate with the processes that have been put in place, which are consistent with those applied by governments over decades,” Mr Brumby told reporters today.

“If you look at Victoria there are thousands of kilometres of underground water pipes, sewer pipes, electricity cables and natural gas pipelines and what we’re doing with the north-south pipeline is applying processes that have been in place under successive governments for decades.”

The workers had a permit to enter the family’s property, he said.

“If it’s their property they’ll make their own decisions about whether they are happy about access or whether they are not,” Mr Brumby said.

“The state needs this project, I can’t be clearer about that.”

- Alice Coster and Charisse Ede