The Great NSW Crown Roads Scam

Suppose that by some historical mishap a section of your neighbours' land been included into your block. In farming communities this can happen due to a bad sense of direction while fencing.

It is up to the owner of the land to have the land surveyed and the cost of fencing the area properly are shared 50-50 between the neighbours. 

Once this land is returned to the legal owner it is up to the owner to control weeds and feral pest.

Not so if the land in question are crown roads belonging to the state government. 

The state government has decided that you the land holder have to pay for the land surveyed then pay for all the fencing and once this is done you are still responsible for weeds and feral pest.

Talk about a bad neighbour, you cannot even take them to court to achieve a fairer settlement.  

I suppose I should explain what crown roads are, they are in reality lines that were drawn on maps to accommodate for population expansion, or access to plots of land.

No investigation was done to find out the need or suitability of these roads. The result is that there are roads going through wetlands, floodplains, through steep gullies and even up cliff faces.

For years the rent was very low, then the state government had a problem with the crown roads around the Sydney harbour area. Millionaires renting foreshore crown roads for $5 per year so KPMG the financing firm were brought in to investigate and report on the crown road systems.

The result was the rent for these crown roads went through the roof, it all depended how many blocks of land you own and how many crown roads are within the blocks. Increases in rent from $50 per year to $800 per year are common.

If this was residential land you could go to the rental board and protest the large rental increase. but since the state government is the landlord you do not have any options for redress.

I agreed to buy the crown roads on my land 7 years ago when I received their offer of purchase, but because of the inactivity of the Department of Trade & Investment Crown Lands it has taken them 7 years to present me with their final offer.

All this time I was forced to pay them rent on the roads. Since it was no fault of mine that the process took so long I thought that at least some of that rent money should be credited towards the sale.

Not so the state governments reply.

Then we come to the purchase price of the crown roads, this process has followed the same reasoning that caused the roads to be created.

Neverland thinking has decided that the valuer generals estimation of property value should be used regardless of the market value of the land or its production potential.

This means that cliff faces can cost $7,000 per hectare, and is included if you wish to fence the area out.

Wetlands are another source of problems, these areas come under the state government Wetland policy SEPP 14, with all the restrictions to land use that are under this act, but when the price of crown roads is concerned it makes no difference.

An example of this is a lower Clarence farmer who owns land that is a wetland. He has been told that the crown roads on his property will cost him $7,243 hectare. 

When he pointed out that his neighbour who has flood free prime cropping land has had his place on the market for 3 years for $3,000 per hectare and has still not been able to sell his land, he was told that it was not relevant and the price of the crown roads in his farm would remain at the price the department demanded.

Back to my gripes with this process - it has taken the state government 7 years to come to the party and give me a price for the crown roads on my property yet they give me a deadline of 30 days to accept or decline the offer.

It seems that I have no right to negotiate a more realistic price for this land based on market value or production potential or restriction imposed by the state government. If I refuse to buy the roads I have two options:

•     Pay for surveying the land and fencing it out of my property, and then still be responsible for weeds and feral pests on this land. Not to mention that the road would cut the property into two portions which would make the farm management very hard.
•      Pay the rent that the state government demands, which has no basis in land use or land value. Currently the state government rent on 2 hectare on a 97 hectare property is more than a third of my council rates. I am sure that this rent will increase exponentially.

So what can you do when the state government, who makes the rules and enforces them, extorts farmers to pay for a historical stuff-up of the government's making. 

Then the state government demands fees and charges of over $1,700 which are not negotiable on each transaction.

Who do you go to get some justice? Who has the money to take this to the courts? Not me.

This process is a classic standover practice commonly used by criminal gangs but because it is the state government using this process it is deemed legal, with no thought given to fairness or justice.

I wonder if they’ll accept that interesting bottle of Grange I found on my doorstep this morning in lieu of those dollars........

The Guardian discovers the Battle for Bentley

The Guardian 10 April 2014:

Bentley farmers who support the movement against mining, from left, Robert Lowrey, Peter Neilson, Colin Thomas and Charles Wilkinson. Photograph: David Lowe

There is a strange political alliance building in this country, one that governments and major parties will do well to consider.

It is the alliance between farmers and the environmental movement on land use issues around coal seam gas and mining.

It has the capacity to change the political landscape in rural Australia and leave a scar as gaping as an open-cut mine on the (predominant) Coalition support.

In rural towns, farmers are joining fellow community members, environmentalists and, yes, the hippy fringe to stop developments of coal and unconventional gas extraction in their neighbourhood. The hot spots are around Bentley, the Pilliga, Gloucester in New South Wales and the Coonawarra in South Australia.

It has become clear the opposition is not coming just from a tie-dyed fringe but also includes very conservative people who do not join the political fray easily. Farmers are now chaining themselves to mining equipment to make their point, a tactic associated by farmers in the past with the “feral” end of the green movement....

Consider the story of one farmer, one of many, who has decided to speak out. Robert Lowrey lives at Bentley in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales, upstream of Metgasco’s gas exploration on a farm belonging to a near neighbour Peter Graham, a former Lismore councillor and National party member.

Lowrey’s father, the elegantly-named Dunbar Lowrey, was chairman of the Bentley National party branch. Robert Lowrey and his wife, Nanette, have the family farm that transitioned from dairy to cattle during deregulation. He describes the farming community around the town as extreme conservatives, “old school” farmers who are reluctant to take a stand.

Yet he has joined up with a friend and fellow farmer Tony Davis to write a letter to the local paper. Davis initially agreed to have a test well on his place, based on Metgasco’s claim the gas would be used for a power plant for Casino. However, once he discovered larger plans, including plans for export, he backed out…..

“When we first heard about the gas, it was about a few wells, a power station for Casino and long-term jobs,” the letter says. “Some of us accepted, even welcomed, test wells on our properties.

“Now we hear about hundreds of wells, pipelines over the ranges, fracking, suspicious chemicals ruined farms, polluted waters and valleys destroyed. Could our valley end up looking like an industrial wasteland? This makes us worry about a lot of things.

“We are worried about the Graham family. They have been our fellow farmers, workmates and friends for decades. Their farm may be the centre of the dispute, but it could easily be one of ours. They need our support, they do not deserve abuse.

“The drilling must stop, the risks are too great. We only have one chance and, if it goes wrong, it is our children, not the mining company, who will bear the consequences.”

Lowrey’s argument is there is no need for gas in the region, given the area’s “good fortune” that provides an environment for clean food production and tourism. Gas extraction development will be such a shame, he says, especially given the Northern Co-operative Meat Company has just started certifying grass-fed beef and the company is “just 10 miles away from the dirty thing”. The closest large town to Bentley is Casino, which markets itself as the beef capital of Australia…..

In some ways the anti-mining campaign has the hallmarks of any big power battle. Governments and large companies came into small communities offering jobs and riches. Football teams were sponsored. Social compacts were made. Then when resistance was met, they tried shouting, which only made things worse. Lowrey says former New South Wales Liberal minister Chris Hartcher came to town for a public meeting.

“Chris Hartcher told us we were anarchists trying to wreck the state’s economy,” Lowrey says. “Nanette was angry. I would just say this household’s personal response is we have been contributing to the economy for 150 years.

“We don’t consider ourselves an elite group. We are just here doing what we set out to do over 100 years ago.”

Just this week, another New South Wales government representative came to town to test farmers’ knowledge, to check they were not reading silly fear mongering on social media.

“I don’t even know how to turn a computer on,” Lowrey says. “I can read Joseph Conrad but not a computer manual. I assured them I was not swayed by social media.”….

The kicker in the story is what this episode has done to political support. Of the farmers and smaller block owners I’ve spoken to, all were National party voters. All say they will be looking to shift their vote elsewhere. They feel like they have been betrayed after many years of support. Lowrey’s response is typical. His father was proud to have a visit from National party leader Sir Earle Page in his little Bentley branch. Now the son has forsaken the party. All parties.

“The political process is being broken down by nepotism and other interests able to bring to bear power through lobbyists, large amounts of money and very persuasive argument,” he says. “As our system becomes more dependent on money, it becomes vulnerable.

“I am sick of parliamentarians taking material they had access to as ministers and peddling it, taking up positions in industry.”

He names former Labor federal resources minister Martin Ferguson, now a director of British Gas, and former National party leaders John Anderson, a former chairman of Eastern Star Gas, and Mark Vaile, who is on the board of Whitehaven Coal.

“It’s moving people away from conservative ordinary politics and interest in National party [here] is waning,” said Lowrey. “People are weighing up alternative parties. Some, quite a few, are going to the Greens.”

They may not move their vote. As a National party MP said to farmers in the Pilliga: “Who else are you going to vote for?” But what is clear from this debate is it will not get easier for governments or mining companies.

For there is nothing so stubborn as a farmer.

Is Kevin Hogan playing coy with the media over his position on coal seam gas mining?

The Nationals Member for Page, Kevin Hogan, went to the 7 September 2013 federal election declaring his opposition to coal seam gas exploration and mining on the NSW North Coast until it could be proved there were no negative impacts.

As late as November 2013 he was attending the Kyogle Gas Free Celebration stating that he had “great reservations”, “real questions marks” about the industry, and was willing to “cross the floor” on any vote concerning CSG.

Although a month earlier in the print media he had begun to state that he could see where pro-mining Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane was coming from in his support for the NSW gas industry.

Since that 2013 rally Mr. Hogan has been rather quiet on the subject of coal seam gas mining and the opposition of Northern Rivers communities to establishment of this industry in the region.

There is no current mention of coal seam gas on his official website that I can find, he lists no advocacy on behalf of the electorate concerning coal seam gas in his own review of his first 100 days as an elected representative.

Similarly his Facebook timeline has been silent on the subject since he became a member of parliament, whilst his Twitter account makes no mention of his position at all except in one tweet praising Metgasco’s temporary suspension of exploration activity way back in March 2013.

Behind the scenes in 2014 there are journalists, working for state-wide and national newspapers, who are beginning to wonder why he is now "ducking and diving" any coal seam gas questions posed to him.

Safely ensconced in his seat with a healthy boost to his income, part of the Canberra political scene; has Kevin already begun to forget the little he knew of his electorate and quietly joined the coal seam gas club?

Will NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione risk another heavy handed political move against Northern Rivers anti-coal seam gas protestors in 2014?

Local landowners & others prepare for the arrival of Metasco at its Rosella-1 well site in early 2014

In 2013 Magistrate David Heilpern publicly took NSW Police to task over charges laid against coal seam gas protestors at Metgasco Limited’s Glenugie site.

Does NSW Police Commissioner Scipione want the world to see more media coverage similar to this because he was persuaded to do the bidding of a coal seam gas exploration company which to date has produced not a cent in profit for its investors or the State of New South Wales and is never likely to?

The Northern Star 6 November 2013

"In this case I find myself asking what could possibly be the reason for continuing on with such an innocuous charge in these circumstances? Why else would police risk cost orders against them, drive a prosecutor up from Sydney to run the matters, arrange police witnesses to travel from Sydney, all for an innocuous minor traffic matter. "It is in that context that the realistic suspicion of political interference arises," he said.....

Metgasco Limited is a mining exploration company which after fourteen years still has no social contract with local communities on the NSW North Coast, a spotty safety record and an unhappy shareholder base.

Hospital mortality rates - not always good news for those living in rural and regional NSW

Bureau of Health Information (December 2013), 30-day mortality following hospitalisation, five clinical conditions, NSW, July 2009 – June 2012: Acute myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, pneumonia and hip fracture surgery:

Acute myocardial infarction - There were 91 hospitals (90%) with mortality no different to expected. Three hospitals (Royal Prince Alfred, Royal North Shore, Prince of Wales), had lower than expected mortality and seven hospitals (Milton and Ulladulla, Cessnock, Bowral, Tamworth, Hornsby, St George, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

For ischaemic stroke - There were 57 hospitals (80%) with mortality no different from expected. Four hospitals (Concord, Prince of Wales, Belmont, and Manly) had lower than expected mortality and ten hospitals (Moruya, Tamworth, Dubbo, Lismore, Nepean, Coffs Harbour, Westmead, Royal Prince Alfred, John Hunter, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Haemorrhagic stroke - There were 82 hospitals (94%) within the expected range of results. Two hospitals (Fairfield, and one not reportable*) had lower than expected mortality and three hospitals (Port Macquarie, John Hunter, and one not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Pneumonia - There were 126 hospitals (89%) within the expected range. Seven hospitals (Canterbury, John Hunter, Bankstown, St Vincent’s, Maitland, Shellharbour, one not reportable) had lower than expected mortality and nine hospitals (Inverell, Manning, Tamworth, Blacktown, Wyong and four not reportable*) had higher than expected mortality.

Hip fracture surgery - Results for 33 hospitals (87%) were within the expected range of mortality. One hospital (St Vincent’s) had lower than expected mortality and four hospitals (Tamworth, Orange, Gosford, and Coffs Harbour) had higher than expected mortality.

Click on images to enlarge

NSW Farmers ask Abbott Government & Minister Macfarlane: "Why should CSG extraction take precedence over protection of land and water and basic needs like food and fibre?"

Media Release
18 September 2013	PR/121/13
Setting the record straight on CSG concerns in NSW NSW Farmers today expressed concern that newly appointed Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane was already dismissing opposition to the coal seam gas industry in NSW. Association president Fiona Simson said the minister’s comments were very concerning especially when he had not yet spoken to all relevant stakeholders on the CSG issue. “Farmers and communities in NSW have deep and genuine concerns about the effect this industry is already having and projected to have on agricultural land and water and we do not think it is fair for those concerns to be labelled politically nor emotionally driven,” she said. “We are however encouraged by the Coalition’s Policy for Resources and Energy in particular the CSG co-existence conditions which state that access to prime agricultural land should only be allowed with the farmer’s agreement and that there should be no damage to the underground water supply. “NSW Farmers does not deny that the Queensland CSG industry has progressed much quicker than in NSW. But the geography of Queensland is different and what works there will not necessarily work here and I can assure him that not everyone over the border is ecstatic about how the CSG industry has developed there. “The NSW legislative framework in relation to CSG is severely lacking – this is something we have been saying for years. “We are not against the industry but we are seeking balanced outcomes. Why should CSG extraction take precedence over protection of land and water and basic needs like food and fibre? “NSW Farmers wants adequate protections for agricultural land and water and we want our questions, legitimate questions, answered. Ms Simson said the federal Coalition’s agriculture policy about building better stakeholder relations was encouraging and she was keen to take them up on that. “However, comments like these are a concern so early on in a new government’s first term,” she concluded. ends