PETER SPENCER is a man on a mission. He admits he has ''no idea'' how many cases he has brought to court in order to defend his property, and he certainly would not be able to estimate the amount of column space that has been dedicated to his various protests.
His record in the courts illustrates the two sides to his story, and the passion with which he pursues his cause.
In October 2008 Mr Spencer lost a NSW Supreme Court case in which he had attempted to sue the NSW minister for climate change, environment and water and the Nature Conservation Trust.
Justice Stephen Rothman's judgment reveals that Mr Spencer's problems began more than 10 years ago, with the passing of the Native Vegetation Act 1997, which, along with other legislation, imposed significant restrictions on what he could do with his land.
While the State Government, through the Nature Conservation Trust, originally said that it would offer a purchase price for the land that estimated the value of the property before the act, within a year it decided to offer to pay the market value of the properties after the legislation had passed.
An offer of more than $2 million was made to Mr Spencer, which he did not accept. Instead he sued the Government, and lost.
Justice Rothman said ''the overall effect of the different pieces of legislation seems grossly unfair and unconscionable'', but found that both the minister and the Nature Conservation Trust had acted within their rights and for the benefit of the community.
Mr Spencer also tried to take his battle to the Federal Court. He claimed that when Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Commonwealth stood to benefit from the fact that he was not allowed to clear his land. In this case, Justice Arthur Emmett found that Mr Spencer's claims were ''embarrassing'' and, later, "gobbledegook". He also ordered that Mr Spencer pay 80 per cent of the Commonwealth's costs from the matter.
One supporter told the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Spencer needed to continue with his protest because the legislation to forbid farmers from clearing their land was ''the most disgusting thing that has happened to a minority group in Australian culture''.
However, his detractors believe he is an opportunist who is out to get more attention for his cause.
They point to his ability to attract attention through events such as the National Chop Down a Tree Day that he organised in 2007, or his current hunger strike.
His willingness to drag his battle through both the courts and the media show that Mr Spencer is not going anywhere any time soon.
Email a friend