Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Katter's Australian Party - is there merit?

Recent events with the announcement and launch of MP Bob Katter's new political party has generated mixed views and feelings in the north.

Just recently an Indigenous senior community member living in Cairns asked my views and opinions on Mr Katter's new party, as he was not sure whether Mr Katter is or would be supportive of Indigenous issues. eg. hunting. In all honesty I was not too sure how Katter's party will go.

An example of new party's in QLD - the extreme changes we have witnessed with the creation of the Queensland Party who are yet to convince the North they are different from the LNP.

Issues raised by many Just Ground members from climate change to asset sales are real issues still awaiting a saviour. Is Mr Katter's new Australian Party the answer? - I don't know. Like anything new there will be a level of sceptism. How pragmatic it will be - time will tell.

The one thing I do know is that real issues affecting our communities are still not being addressed appropriately by our current government both state and federally eg. social justice, law and order, violence against women, businesses struggling and closing down because they are unable to pay rent etc etc etc.....

How will Katter's party address these issues and how pragmatic his policies will be is yet to be revealed

Tags: Australian, and, assets, change, climate, justice, law, order, party, sales, More…social

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Davies on March 20, 2012 at 2:30pm

Don't give up your other Job Bob!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on March 21, 2012 at 7:40pm

The KAP asked Peter Spencer to coin a declaration that would bind all politicians to a simple idea and this is what he came up with. What do you all think as it transcends all the political boundaries-

Candidates Declaration – Property # FKAPCD001

This agreement by the candidate being a commitment to the electorate regarding the rights of that electorate and all Australians.

A Declaration regarding property it being the Candidates commitment to the electorate on any acquisition in that it be only on - “Just Terms”.

____________________________________________________________

In representing the party named_____________________________________________of_______________________________State

I the candidate _______________________for ________________________electorate. On this date___________________________

Subject to Clause ( ) ss ( ) # (see below comment) of ________________I, on being elected to represent the electorate of __________________

in Local Government, State Government of (Name State)_______________________, Federal Australian Government, (circle which applicable)

Subject to this section of the party’s agreement with the candidate the candidate named herewith agrees that being subject to this section he/she has no power to make laws with respect to:

the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms

just terms being that which represents the said property’s full value at the time of conveyance
and that acquisition to include the property’s full potential and relationship attachment.

Candidate:

Name of Candidate:________________________________________________

Signed the Candidate:_____________________________________________

Date:____________________________________________

Witness’s

Electorate Chairman:________________________________ Electorate Secretary:______________________________________

Signed the Chairman:______________________________ Signed Secretary:_______________________________________

Date:___________________________________________ Date:__________________________________________________

# Place a line through this if not applicable or not part of an expanded candidate agreement. # FORMKATTERAUSTPARTY001

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Davies on March 21, 2012 at 8:50pm

Greg, that's a very relevant point with all going on around prime agricultural farm cropping & grazing land.

Not sure if it should be added into this but we need to be closer to NZ in allowed Foreign Investment rules ASAP.

Just imagine if the dollar was back at $0.48 & we have what IMO are the current rules. I believe the ownership rules were all changed 2008.

Greg Blackmore said:

The problem is Rob that they make laws that depreciate the value of the property without going as far as making a compulsory acquisition at all. You are still the landholder and can not utilise the full productive potential of the property. It should be written that if the productive potential of the property is affected in any way then it has to be acquired on just terms to include not only the market value at the time but also dislocation and relocation costs

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on March 21, 2012 at 9:48pm

I have read the proposal a number of times and i am still not sure if it is an agreement to agree.

If it is, then the law will have to be changed, as under the current law one cannot have an agreement to agree.

'Just Terms' concerns me. Seems that it could be like that old legal chestnut of 'reasonable' and the definition of same.

What should be clause 3 (they are numbered 1.1.2. I'm not nit picking) I don't know how that could be established.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on March 21, 2012 at 11:05pm

Roger,

That's excactly what I ment earlier by changing the constitution by amending Human Rights and Property Rights . or at least create yet another ACT (so that the constitution does'nt have be changed).

What can the agreement with a few candidates do for solving the real problem?
Cheers

Pam

Roger Rankin Crook said:

I have read the proposal a number of times and i am still not sure if it is an agreement to agree.

If it is, then the law will have to be changed, as under the current law one cannot have an agreement to agree.

'Just Terms' concerns me. Seems that it could be like that old legal chestnut of 'reasonable' and the definition of same.

What should be clause 3 (they are numbered 1.1.2. I'm not nit picking) I don't know how that could be established.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on March 22, 2012 at 6:36am

Roger-

I agree (3) is a bit abstract .This was the draft that he sent them. It becomes a legit "point of difference" for candidates that won't sign off. If their parties want to go ahead and a signed off candidate crosses the floor- they have completed there commitment.

A simple example that I can think of is Margaret from the Shoalhaven Estates. Bought in 85 for $20000, council val three years ago-$18500,Council val the other day $500. It is a simple costless way to raise the profile of this theft and to shame those that are engaging in it but as per usual all the armchair experts only know how to dump - but never offer any solutions!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on March 22, 2012 at 9:04am

Wet here today so have cancelled the cow and calf mustering at this stage.Greg - I am not at odds with what you say and doubt that you spend much time in the armchair.

Spencer was asked to do something- that was what he came up with. If I were a candidate-I would sign it- it was probably too late to be used in our State election unfortunately- the request was made at the KAP convention. Politicians have voted these toxic arrangements in over a long period of time and it doesn't matter what landowners are concerned about- to change laws - politicians have to be feeling pressure from something.

I'm sure a thing like this wouldn't be binding but it is a "statement " that at least raises the issue- something that 90% of the electorate has never even thought of( till they are dudded).

Everything comes back to creating that PRESSURE.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on March 22, 2012 at 12:31pm

To-days Poll tells that Bob Katter's Australian Party is polling 2%. If you know Bob Katter please impress on Bob. "Bob you have nothing to lose preferencing the LNP number 2, many of the rusted on Liberals and dissapointed (That the Nats merged with the Libs) Nationals will Vote one Katter is they know Katter is preferencing No 2 to the LNP. Reprint your How-to-vote cards and James Darby will hand out on Polling Day for you as will many thousands of others who want you to make a place in Qld and demand that you preference LNP before they turn up to help on the Polling Booth."

Please share and forward this message to Bob Katter and KAP candidates

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roger Rankin Crook on March 22, 2012 at 1:08pm

It's an interesting point that is made regarding land value as perceived by the market.

When the Blue Gum MIS schemes started the first farm I am aware of was sold for ~$350/acre. Within months I sold a property, within sight almost of the original, for a client for ~$700.00. Within another 3 months, the neighbour of the ~$700.00/acre sold for nearly $800.00./acre.

At the time of the collapse, in fact just a week before, a timber company paid over $3000.00/acre.

This all happened over about 12 years. There are now some 200,000 ha of blue gum plantations in WA alone, most are running feral.

Good farming land, capable of producing food has been lost.

Of course the Valuer General assessed land values during this period. As a result the rates on our farm nearly tripled.

The MIS schemes placed farmland out of the reach of farmers in an area which is a cereal/stock.

The MIS schemes are gone. Some who didn't sell believing there was no end to the escalating values are now regretting they didn't sell, even bitter.

Now we have a new player in the market. A Chinese company just bought a big, local (30km from Albany) family(they milk thousands) dairy farm and milk processing factory, which bottles some of their milk into boutique products. The 'boutique' is my description. For instance they have a line of 'natural tasting' milk, in that it isn't homogenised, so you still get the cream on the top of the bottle. It's very expensive compared to the $1.00/L stuff, but one is milk, and the other stuff in comparison, is just... $1.00L/stuff.

As Greg has written, the same challenges are being faced in Qld and NSW with mining and gas. Inflated prices or just the 'new' value of the land?

We are now facing new challenges as land which we consider to be farming land, is in demand for non-farming purposes and the prices being paid are way out of reach of traditional farmers.

It's been going on for a long time. There are comparisons with urban sprawl over the last 2 hundred years. The original pioneers settled on the best land to build their coastal towns and cities. I think the first wheat crop in Australia was grown at Parramatta.

There are some big challenges ahead. Let us just hope that agriculture can speak with one voice, which speaks for the majority. Rather than the cacophony we have at present.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on March 22, 2012 at 5:50pm

James,

I sent you last appeal about preferencing into KAP hq- the one where you mentioned that it was the likely reason that Peter King lost to Turnbull.Don't think that they were too receptive?!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on March 23, 2012 at 11:04am

Hi Rob, Thanks for important help. Unfortunately I failed to get Bob to see sense even though I never stopped pleading. Whilst Peter King's failure to preference Turnbull did in my view lose the election for King, failure to preference (correctly) has a bigger examble of failure. Due to my then severe anti-Turnbull, anti-Republician stance I was frantic for King to win and said personally to Peter King- "Peter, Pauline Hanson responded to the Liberal Party edict 'Place One Nation last' with the greatest mistake of her political life. Pauline repeated over and over again 'Vote the sitting member last'. "Vote the sitting member last" as stated by Pauline lost her my vote and about another 750,000 Australians ceased to support her. I appeal to you Peter to preference Turnbull No 2, if you do not you will lose and lose badly. No Liberal minded person such as myself will assist you or vote for you if you do not preference Turnbull No 2, Turnbull is the endorsed Liberal Candidate and however much contempt you or I have for him in order to obtain the 'conservative' number 1 vote and in order to attract 100's of volunteer supporters you must preference Turnbull number 2."

I alledge that Peter King's paid electoral staff and other advisors were counter productive to what was best for Peter. Turnbull must have had a mole in King's office as Turnbull knew of my conversation with King as Turnbull asked me about it. The moment that it became clear that King was not going to preference Turnbull, both Turnbull and I knew that Turnbull would win. King made other severe campaign mistakes that would have been washed away had he preferenced Turnbull.

I have been unable to come to terms with whatever the insane reason for not preferencing (correctly) is - other than a 'be defeated' wish.

I have have similar discussions with Bob Katter to no avail. The great shame is that Bob's new Party will be very lucky to get three Members into State Parliament. The best outcome for Queensland would have been every ALP pollie out and Katter's Party as the Opposition to the new LNP Government. Anna Blight in her own way is as deceitful and deceptive as Juliar Gillard. Any person who votes Labor on Satuarday becomes a signatory to acceptance of electoral fraud as practised by the Leader of the Labor Party.

The urgent responsibility for all who understand the danger that Labor Governments are to the prosperity and security of Australia is to use the preference system. I recommend a voting of the whole ballot paper with Greens Last and ALP second last. Or at the very least if voting KAP vote 2 LNP, if voting LNP vote 2 KAP.