FRIENDS of hunger-striking farmer, Peter Spencer, say it was "no secret" he was offered compensation by the NSW Government in relation to his protests over land clearing, or that he had significant debts with family members, as questions arise as to the real motives of his strike.
Mr Spencer's spokesman, Alistair McRobert, said the fact a $2 million offer of compensation had been made to the 61 year old southern-NSW farmer, and rejected, had been made public well before Mr Spencer's strike started.
According to Mr McRobert, Mr Spencer had also said from the start of his protest "sheriffs would be waiting at the bottom of the tower" once the hunger strike ends, as news of his financial troubles emerged in recent days.
Media reports since the weekend have suggested Mr Spencer's motives might not be so entrenched in the issue of just terms compensation for the loss of property rights as he has maintained.
It's believe he is indebted to family members to the tune of $1 million or more, and there were suggestions authorities could serve Mr Spencer with a possession order, forcing his eviction, as early as Tuesday, however this has been rejected by the Spencer camp.
Mr Spencer's brother, Graham Spencer, told journalists during the week that his brother's issues were only loosely connected to land clearing, and said his farm was on marginal land anyway.
Mr Spencer has had his case before the courts for some years, arguing in more recent legal challenges in the Supreme and High Courts that farmers should be compensated by the Federal Government for the loss of property rights, with the Government obtaining benefits by claiming carbon credits over farmland which has been locked up by land clearing bans.
Mr Spencer has long claimed there is proof the Federal Government and State Governments agreed to reduce land clearing, and climate change abatement was the motive.
Key documents Mr Spencer says vindicates his case include an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment from February 1992 which does outline the "important role of the Commonwealth and the States in relation to the environment and the contribution of the States in the development of national and international policies for which the Commonwealth has responsibilities".
Tellingly, the 1992 document acknowledges the impact of greenhouse-enhanced climate change on Australia's natural, social and working environment and the need to participate in an international convention on climate change.
It endorsed new targets to stabilise greenhouse gases "subject to Australia not implementing response measures that would have net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia's trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major greenhouse gas producing countries".
Conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity along with appropriate land use were pivotal principles in the agreement, however there is no specific mention of land clearing restrictions in the document.
Mr McRobert said last week that to understand the link between the States and the Commonwealth on this issue, one must follow the extensive paper trail to see the full picture, concluding a robber wouldn't leave a note for the police of his plans to rob a bank.
Email a friend