The shame is that this 'one of a handful' of (sensitive) areas was in private hands. Government and conservation groups should acquire these to protect them.

I hate cumpulsory acquisition but in some cases maybe it works to protect sensitive areas.

The facts surrounding the Hudson case have a far deeper meaning than simply a charge related to the environment. The decision has far reaching undertones for all Australians currently holding deeds to land, be they in suburbia of on rural land.

The decision cements the evolving law pertaining to land ownership generally, in that there is no privately owned land in Australia. It is all owned by the state and the “holder” of the land is simply the “renter”.

This is a relatively new concept now cemented into the law arising from the environmental movement.

The point that has not yet been realised is that now the ownership is gone and replaced with the term “renter” the commercial economic value of all land in Australia (including urban) is zero in $ terms, because there is no limit to which the law of the can effectively be applied.

It is now an issue of security. All beneficial ownership has been appropriated by government with the enactment of the various “native vegetation acts”, without payment of any equity to the deed holder, and, in most cases, to the mortgager.

What follows is...why do we use our private money to build or to operate a commercial business or farm or raise livestock on land that is now impossible to own by crown grant?

The state should fund the activities on their land out of consolidated revenue, the same as William the Conqueror did. What makes the Hudson’s “Yarrall” property any different to anywhere else?

There was no declaration over the land. It was not part of a declared conservation area.

It was just farmland with no registered interests on the title and no reservations in the deed.

In the Hudson’s case, the state refused to register their “interest”. Moreover, the state insisted that John and Lynn’s equity be effectively forfeited to the state.

The last time I looked at Commonwealth Law, “appropriation” of property without payment was “theft’ in one code, and, in another Act, it was referred to as “larceny”.

With John now being convicted of a criminal offence, “Yarrall” obviously does not belong to him. The state effectively owns it.

The questions must be asked...when did the Hudson’s ownership convert to “renter”? Was the appropriation by the state after the Hudson’s purchase or was it during the previous owner or owners? Notwithstanding all that I have said, a further question is: why would a bank lend money on such a such a high security risk?

Having read and seen media reports surrounding this case, I decided to download and read the actual judgement and the reasoning behind the criminal judgement, which, as a matter fact, was heard and delivered by a so called “Coram” (whatever that is).

There appears to be some troubling missing elements from the judgement, first of which there is no mention of the source of the land, that is, the Crowns Lands Act that creates the title and all reservations, or any other interest held back by the state for the benefit of the state and in this case the title is a title of fee simple (absolute) and includes the complete and absolute ownership of the native vegetation.

The second thing missing is that there is no mention of the Conveyancing Act that creates the deed and details any reservations, which is then registered with the registrar of deeds, or the contract that creates the separation of the land fully and absolutely from the previous owner, which in this case was the state, or crown.

The third thing missing is any mention of the Real Property Act which registers all equitable and propriety interests, or any other registrable interests, in order of priority, associated with the conveyed land so that any claims against the land and things forming the land (native vegetation) can be determined against the type of interest claimed.

Also missing from the judgement, and most troubling, is any reference to a “Declared Area” being placed over the property.

Sources close to the case have informed me that the property is in fact located outside of the declared Ramsar Convention wetlands. If it was inside a declared area, it would then be registered as an “interest” against the title and deed.

In any case the owners would have been financially compensated for any declared area.

There is also no mention of any “Conservation Agreement” (Covenant) between the present owners of the property and any Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Again sources close to the case confirm that there are no covenants over the property and again if there was this “Interest” would be registered against the title and deed.

The judgement says at page 14: “Recognition of the harm done, in this case to the community, is one of the purposes of sentencing”.

The statute definition of land holds that land is “Real Property”. The questions must now be asked, that, if a Government can, at the stroke of a pen and for the benefit of the community, remove property by a law, then impose a financial penalty, which is also known as property, where does this leave the private ownership and the equity invested in private land, or any other private property in this state?

And, who will restore the jurisdictional balance between that of laws affecting “Public Land” and that of laws affecting “Private Land”?

It appears that all defence mechanisms that would enable the protection of ones property have vanished into thin air following this judgement.

William Wallace makes some good points. When you read the court ruling several words "hit you in the face", like; "the Hudson's were owners of Yarrol."

Something is amiss here..."were owners".

How are the state governments in Australia effectivelty removing common law rights and the bundle of rights associated with fee simple property when the state Governments have no equity.

Where does this appropriation stop without compensation? Is the High Court of Australia going to allow the ongoing destruction of our independant three tiered government; the parliament, the judiciary and the crown?

Effectively, this system has already dissappeared at state level and nobody voted for it or agreed to it. No-one is stopping green groups or state governments from purchasing the land back and returning it to the crown - and yet it would appear they can just steal it without any compensation.

If the land concerned was environmentally significant, why didn't the NSW Government just return it to crown ownership and look after it from their coffers? Instead, the Hudsons, in attempting to control lippia (a noxious weed), have fallen foul of a statute system that makes land management difficult and non-profitable.

I guess the answer here is that the NSW Government cannot afford the weed control, or the purchase of these "environmentally" sensitive sites. Hence it is easier to find fault with the landowner and probably claim the land back when the fine is too big for the landowner to cope with.

Hence the land returns to the crown at no cost to the government.

There is another set of looming problems if fee simple title now means statute law can effectively remove all property rights and the ability to farm profitably and viably in Australia. These are:

1) When will the overseas financiers funding much of Australia's primary production land (Rabobank , Elders etc) realise that a mortgage over fee simple land title is a big financial risk. The registered title really means nothing, if a statute can be enacted tommorrow that removes the viable use of the land.

Current examples include removal of reasonable access to water, the inability to remove regrowth to grow crops etc.

2) Where are the councils to get their rates from if fee simple "ownership" just means you have only purchased a right to use the land and you don't actually own it (you are a renter)?

Are the councils going to bill the rates to the state governments who have appropriated the land and property?

3) There is a double set of standards in existance here. The state governments wouldn't dare appropriate property in the cities where the votes exist.

Instead they do it in the rural areas where the votes are now quite irrelevant. Removal of the bundle of rights associated with land and property ownership can be compared to the loss (appropriation) of a kitchen for a freeway construction with zero compensation.

The term "community" is mentioned repeatedly in state legislation, regulation and court rulings. In effect. communism is already the major mode of government in Australia and it has happened by stealth and nobody seems to have noticed.

Basically free enterprise is heading down the gurgler and our "democratic" governments have almost achieved something the "Red Peril" couldn't.

How long will it take the general population to wake up to fact that real democracy is almost dead in Australia?

The right-wingers are at it again, as the comments above show. Did the commentors get together and plan what each should write?

All they consider is the "rights" of a landowner to do whatever he/she likes.

There is no consideration of the effects on native animals, bird species, fish breeding, the purifying effects of wetlands on the rivers, or even the effects on the community, such as the beneficial effects of insect-eating birds.

Monitoring of the Macquarie "Marshes" has shown a drop in the number of water birds from tens of thousands 20 years ago, to less than 20 birds in 2004.

I drove through the marshes in 2005 and couldn't find any marshes. The destruction of wetlands is a national disaster.

Begorrah, I was just about to open up a nuclear dump and store all of France and Russia's nuclear and toxic waste and now I find I'm not free to do what I want with my land.

Next the bastards in Canberra will be telling me I'm not free to force my wife into sex or get legless and drive home from the pub. I'm moving to Cuba!

The bush crown lawyers have emerged that know better than the law, justice and legislature systems of this country - Messer Michelmore, Whatjustice and Wallace.

The laws are clear about native vegetation protection and do not differ from other laws governing landuse zoning, planning etc that also govern what people can or cannot do on land they may freehold or hold with mortgage interest.

These laws do not form any challenge to tenure of land, as claimed by these bush lawyers.

They are quite separate instruments in law but public good issues at the community level need to be dealt irrespective of individual tenure interests so that our community environs and amenity values for landscape assets are not compromised by greed of individuals with no regards for environment, neighbours or the nation.

A ruling was made on the value of the asset on behalf of the environment and if Hudson did not like it, appealed it without success, should have moved on to other plans where the environmental consequences would be more acceptable.

Justice has been done - and deservedly so.

The environmental land lawbreakers need to be dealt with by the full force of the law on behalf of the majority of Australians who wish it this way as correctly reflected in the legislature of our elected governments.

So, wessa and the other “Communal Property” occupiers, or perhaps squatters, don’t believe in private property ownership therefore, one can only assume that you and your other mates have all donated all your private property to the State for the benefit of the community. It must be hard not owning anything, or was it just rubbish in any event and of no value? The land was “Sold” by the government for the purposes of “Agriculture & Primary Production” and was not sold as a communal or public “State” reserve. If you believe it should be “State” or communal land then bloody well buy it because the present owners don’t want to donate it. Is that too hard to understand or are you just ideologically too far to the left to comprehend? Party on

The Victorian landowner that was fined $50,000 for clearing land to protect his property now has the only house left standing in the area after the weekend's tragic bushfires. Putting his family's life and property before the absurd native veg laws is the right thing to do. I reserve my right to do the same. Let's hope the Royal Commission into the fires takes those responsible for the native veg act to task. In a country where cheap food is taken for granted the greens are given more influence than they deserve. Remember every time you stop a farmer clearing land someone in the world starves.

Please Wessa. All you have to do is buy this land with your money, lock it up, pay the rates, control the weeds and feral animals and pay the natural resouces levy, the emergency services levy etc etc without any income from it. We are all happy for you to do this today.