Our readers tell John Howard what he should do in his third term - Part 2

In some Government media statements the reasons are given as "... need for Legislation to cover aspects of ..." and then refer to compensation.

What compensation can there possibly be when the land has never been cleared and never used for agricultural or any other purposes? I think that is a good question!

Is there a need to have more land cleared and if so for what reason.?

Well in my humble view there need for clearing any additional land should be subject to some criteria.

Perhaps these could be:

• need;
• adjacent areas;
• habitat;
• results of the clear;

and subject the "clearer" to an EIS for them to show exactly what will happen to the river system and other runoff when the clearing is in place.

Are their other views?  ok what are they.?

With clearing there appears to be a lack of Government will to step up and say "enough is enough"!