If you look through Katter’s wishlist (the earlier thread is here) there are quite a few items that could potentially bring him into conflict with the Greens. See 5, 6, 8 and 13, for example.
Take a look at this map of the wild rivers from The Wilderness Society site:
Wild rivers
Then overlay it in your mind with Katter’s electorate:
Katter's electorate
Katter’s electorate, if it includes Hinchinbrook Island, which I think it does, contains five protected wild rivers areas. Some of these are in areas where such declarations would make life difficult for the pastoral industry. Katter wants the Wild Rivers Legislation removed, though how the Commonwealth removes state legislation is not clear.
Glenn Milne, in his ever helpful way, has divided the Greens into two types, the Blue Greens (Brown and Milne) and the Red or Grunge Greens (the rest and most of the membership).
My reaction to this is that it is likely to be over-simplistic and his article doesn’t get much past name-calling. “Red” and “grunge” are definitely meant to be derogatory. I don’t know any of them or their philosophies personally, so I decided that I’d take a slightly deeper look at what’s going on so that readers can add their insights and with a bit of luck we all learn something. The caveat is that I’ve never studied politics academically, so my analysis may not be too profound.
If you start with the notion of party politics it is often said that green parties around the world rest on four pillars:
-
* Ecological wisdom
* Social justice
* Grassroots democracy
* Nonviolence
In each of these categories there will be a spectrum of views. For example, Paul Norton, who has no doubt forgotten more about green politics than I’ll ever know, did a post on Green politics as radical democracy.
What Paul posted was written for an academic audience. Here I’d draw attention to the beginning of his conclusion:
I would argue that Radical Democracy offers promise as a “master frame” within which we can locate the Green commitments to social justice and equality, grassroots democracy, and non-violence. It provides a more satisfactory and complete framework for these commitments than a liberal-democratic framework which unproblematically accepts the institutions of representative democracy and capitalist industrialism, whilst also avoiding and overcoming the weaknesses of the traditional social-democratic and communist paradigms.
Personally I wouldn’t use radical democracy as my master frame. My political thinking would begin with the three concepts from the French revolution, liberty, equality, fraternity, which is also, I find the motto of France, but would add a fourth – ecological sustainability.
Two problems. First fraternity is meant to be gender inclusive. Substitutes like solidarity don’t quite do it for me.
Secondly, I can’t explain any without explaining all, which goes beyond the scope of this post. Underlying it is a particular conception of personhood, which construes the individual as fundamentally part of a group identity as a matter of ontological fact rather than as social identification. The best expression of what I mean came in an interview with Ajume Wingo on Saturday who quotes a dictum from John Mbiti:
‘I am, because we are, and since we are, therefore I am.’
This concept of personhood is necessary to reconcile the individual freedoms and aspirations suggested in liberty and equality with the collectivism of fraternity, although the interpenetration goes beyond that.
But let me nevertheless plunge into the concept of ecologism, which is where green politics, I think, distinguishes itself.
This is from Heywood’s Political ideologies: an introduction (2nd edition, it’s now in its 4th):
Ecologism represents a new style of politics. It starts not from a conception of ‘humanity’ or human needs, but from a vision of nature as a network of precious but fragile relationships between living species, including the human species, and the natural environment. Humankind no longer occupies centre stage, but is regarded as an inseparable part of nature. Human beings are therefore required to practise humility, moderation and gentleness…
The perspective shifts from anthropocentrism to a focus on the whole ecology.
Heywood has a helpful summary of the typical historical perspective on nature adopted by the various political philosophies:
Liberals see nature as a resource to satisfy human needs, and thus rarely question human dominion over nature.
Socialists, like liberals, have viewed and treated nature as merely a resource.
He goes on to say that there is also a romantic or pastoral tradition within socialism that extols the beauty, harmony and richness of nature.
Conservatives often portray nature as threatening, even cruel, characterised by an amoral struggle and harshness that also shapes human existence. Humans may well be seen as part of nature within a ‘great chain of being’, their superiority nevertheless being enshrined in their status as custodians of nature.
Ecologists, particularly deep ecologists, regard nature as an interconnected whole, embracing humans and non-humans as well as the inanimate world. Nature is sometimes seen as a source of knowledge and right living, human fulfilment coming from a closeness to and respect for nature, not from the attempt to dominate it.
That was Heywood writing in 1998 and doesn’t do justice to a 28-page chapter. The above descriptions are no doubt stereotypes, but do draw attention to the anthropocentrism and potential hubris of conventional political philosophies in relation to nature.
Clive Hamilton’s Requiem for a species has a whole chapter on our Disconnection from nature with a section on Self and world where he says a developing fissure between the human and the non-human world has allowed a growing preoccupation with the personal self.
The conception of self is not fixed but dynamic, responding over time to social, cultural and personal influences. This is implicit in the claim that the era of neo-liberalism and modern consumerism has promoted more self-focused, individualistic behaviour.
Broadly there are two forms of self-construal, the independent and the interdependent. The former is characteristic of Western societies.
Both are anthropocentric as contrasted with a third form, the metapersonal self-construal, which describes
a sense of self inseparably connected to all living things or some wider notion of the earth or cosmos.
You could say that independent vs interdependent equals bad vs good while metapersonal is even better. There is a significant snag in the works, however.
Hamilton points out that interdependent people may value the in-group over the out-group. Indeed they may consider the out-group as less than human. Carrying that one step further, the metapersonal group may also have an in-group human perspective and regard the human out-group as of lesser worth than the rest of nature.
This is where I go back to Paul Norton’s piece:
Radical Democracy also entails eschewing the concept of achieving fundamental social change through a revolution or insurrection which marks a complete break with pre-existing society. Both in the universalistic and post-modernist versions, it calls for change to occur through a process of democratically agreed reform in which citizens are active participants rather than passive recipients of direction and benefits from a benign state.
In Queensland (and arguably elsewhere) change has become coercive in relation to primary producers and the state perceived as not so benign.
Whelan and Lyons document how green groups gave up on a consultative model in Queensland in favour of seeking changes in the law by intervening in electoral politics. I’ve added a couple of phrases to this quotation to make the power relationships clear:
ENGOs engaged in a diverse range of campaign strategies to pressure government to govern. Importantly, the landclearing case demonstrates the demonstration of the conservation movement to hold government accountable [to them] for responsible natural resource management, rather than deferring to problematic [as they see it] consultative processes.
Success was initially declared by green groups in 2004. But they came back for more. The Whelan and Lyons article was written before the 2009 election when the “regrowth moratorium” was declared by the Labor government prior to the election. A Green Party preference deal determined the outcome in a dozen seats, enough to decide the election. Subsequently I understand a million hectares of regrowth land, which former premier Beattie had promised would always be available for clearing, was alienated from production.
One of the problems with this is that, however desirable such measures can be argued to be in terms of conservation, no compensation is paid in Qld for reduced productive capacity. There was some when the laws were introduced, but it was considered hopelessly inadequate. You may recall that the “tower of hope” protest by farmer Peter Spencer highlighted similar concerns in NSW. Spencer was a colourful character in circumstances that were in many ways atypical. Many thought he contributed to his own plight.
Nevertheless, his protest led to a Senate Inquiry on Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures. Here’s the membership of the committee. The Conclusions and recommendations accept without equivocation that there is a problem, a large problem, albeit with a dissenting report from The Greens.
In the reports of the hearings at Rockhampton I’d recommend the testimony by Dale Stiller from p79, where he goes into the personal impacts of vegetation legislation, the fear and fractured relationships with government.
My elder brother chairs an outfit called Property Rights Australia, which assists selected property owners who believe they have been unfairly targeted by the vegetation management legislation. They have won 13 of the 14 cases they have supported. He is phoned by just about everyone in Qld and beyond who believes they have been unjustly treated. Recently he said this:
After eleven years the Veg Management Act of 1999 has had twenty two amending Acts with 400 amendments (184 of these retrospective).
These amendments have been deemed necessary not only to make a plea of not guilty much more difficult to mount by the defence in court proceedings but to accommodate further demands by the Greens in preference deals negotiated with Labor at three successive elections.
Every change is prefaced by the Premier and her Minister declaiming the need for certainty. Changes of vegetation status can occur unilaterally without notice or consultation, rendering the landowner criminally liable for the portion cleared after the change.
Overseas jurists can’t believe that the repressive nature of these laws exist in a western style democracy.
Dale Stiller mentioned the reversal of the onus of proof. You can be deemed guilty unless you prove your innocence. I understand that on occasions where you do contest the charge, the response can be to increase the assessed damages.
What I think about these issues doesn’t matter. Also, it is not my intention to argue the rights and wrongs in the comments thread. My purpose is to give an insight into what Katter is on about. In his electorate he has the wild rivers legislation where a strip a kilometre wide on each side of a river and tributaries, often the best land, can be locked up. He has the vegetation management laws. He has the perspective that large tracts the north is being effectively locked up and alienated from productive activity and development restricted or effectively precluded. Another matter concerns the renewal of leases, where land that was previously available for productive activity can, without warning, consultation or a ground inspection, be alienated from production.
Dale Stiller mentioned suicides. Katter talks of a farmer suicide every four days.
Under these circumstances would Katter ever consider giving support to a Gillard government with its agreement with the Greens?
For one thing, greens, even deep greens, contra Glenn Milne, do not by definition value the rest of the biosphere above farmers. Nor do they necessarily see coercion as the best way forward in effecting desirable change. But their reputation is largely otherwise in Katter country.
If Katter wants his agenda to get up, working with an Abbott government would still mean that he needs to get legislation past the senate. working with Labor, with his mate on the inside may be a preferable way to go. besides if he has Labor with him, he could get legislation through with the Coalition’s assistance. Abbott wouldn’t oppose for the sake of opposing would he?
I think he’ll say a pox on both your houses if Oakeshott and Windsor go with Labor. That way he maximises his leverage and doesn’t upset his following in the electorate.
Meanwhile Hamilton thinks that if we want to avoid dystopia, to achieve a lasting balance within our environment, we need to change the way we see the world, to reshape our way of being within the world. No easy task and where we are is not an easy place to start. But start we must. All we need to do is co-operatively, valuing every other person seek the triple bottom line. But what you need is not Venn diagrams and other fantastic configurations. Just three concentric circles with the environment the largest and the economy the smallest. Something like this, but stripped of all the distracting words:
Triple bottom line
Warren Entsch made much of the Wild Rivers legislation in his campaign and declared on election night that it was a decisive factor in the electorate’s 8% percent swing to the LNP. Both he and Katter seem to be reflecting an attitude that the bush is still a frontier to be exploited and that right is bestowed upon those who choose to live in such remote areas.
I’m surprised that there is no reference here to what the indigenous communities in the affected areas think. I’m also not sure Clive Hamilton is your best source, given his well known anti-democratic proclivities.
Another way of looking at this comes down to your view on who ultimately “owns” land. Is it the person with their name on the title deed? The local community? Or a broader community represented by the nation or even the world?
Terry/dave, I did a lot of work on the Wild Rivers topic earlier this year, and in fact still have a draft post in the can. We won’t go any further, however, unless we can get an Aboriginal perspective other than from the Pearsons, whose position is well known. Also I understand there are a few developments since then, which I’m not fully across.
Of course, it is state legislation. The indigenous peoples are not proposing major development. What Katter and Heffernan have in mind is not clear to me.
With the Vegetation Management Act it is claimed that the effects of the regime can be and largely are perverse for environmental outcomes.
Terry, I’m taking Hamilton at face value on his book and didn’t detect anti-democratic proclivities in it. I’m willing to be instructed on what I’ve missed. What I quoted in the body of the post is not original Hamilton. He is reporting on the ideas and research of others.
The Wild Rivers legislation is a massive wedge. Noel Pearson and Marcia Langton are spinning opposition to the WR legislation as a desire by naive city folk to keep indigenous people in some imaginary state of nature, thus condemning them to poverty and the dole. They deliberately gloss over the fact that business that doesn’t damage river headwaters is allowed. What they want is a strip mine. A strip mine? Really? Have we learned nothing? and what about indigenous people further downstream who might object to having their water turbid and their fish killed?
This is shaping up to be a typical culture-wars manichaean bullshit argument along the lines of “Strip mining, or slow death on the dole: there is no other way!”
In other parts of the country, indigenous people are not welcoming mining or waste dumps with open arms. You have to ask whether the cornucopia of money which Pearson expects from the strip mine will really flow to local indigenous people, or to the fly-in-fly-out experienced mining workers and the corporate suits. And I wonder how many shares he’ll be buying.
A brief note then: I’ve serious reservations about ecologism because human history is replete with examples of the sorry consequences of the maladaption of an idea from science to human social life. The proper realm for ecological knowledge is confined to non-human nature. Attempts to order human society along ecological lines, ie, based on scientific ecology, will invariably hinder human freedoms. Regulating human metabolic interchange with non-human nature according to ecological science is appropriate. Allowing “ecological philosophers” (see the ugly acronym ‘ecosophy’) to determine the limits of human democracy except in relation to non-human nature, isn’t.
Prepare yourselves for more brain addling nonsense from journalists as they attempt to come up to speed with developments they have ignored for the last twenty or so years.
In the posting above Brian refers to a book by Clive Hamilton; a whole chapter on our Disconnection from nature with a section on Self and world where he says a developing fissure between the human and the non-human world has allowed a growing preoccupation with the personal self.
As much as I’m poles apart in much of Hamilton’s thinking, I do believe that he is right on this point. But I would go much further than that of Hamilton in that I believe that a disconnection from nature, the natural world of conserved habit & of the soil for the production of food leads to many impositions upon regions far away from an urban State or national capitals that bases on perceptions of unreality.
Dave @1 surely the people who live in a locality must have a knowledge, surely it is the right of aboriginal peoples to have a say. All people are there not because of your loaded word “choose”; they are of the country!
Terry @2 Indeed! “what the indigenous communities in the affected areas think.”
If I knew how to directly post a youtube I would at this point but go to this posting on Cairnsblog & find the youtube video of Mayor of the Northern Peninsula Area, Joseph Elu.
The Australian Greens are to the right of most European Green parties, who are themesleves more right-wing than most would think. One really important point to consider: the Australian Greens developed out of the conservation movement, which often had a standoffish relationship with the organised left, while European Greens developed out of the nuclear disarmament movement (largely a project of the New Left). The character of the Greens is as yet totally undecided, though. The next few years will see a lot of change and possibly conflict within the party.
Robert @ 3, Katter’s points 7 and 8 go to land ownership and fair compensation for the loss of property rights, which the Senate inquiry recognised was a problem.
The problem comes when rights are changed, adversely affecting productive capacity in a way that can render a business plan unviable. No-one these day, as far as I know, is suggesting that there should be no restrictions on land use. It’s the perceived arbitrary and sometimes retrospective changes that cause problems
akn @ 6, there is an enormous range of views. People like Senator Milne see employment increases in going to a low carbon future. Some see the future as not being constrained in our production and use of energy.
OTOH I once came across a woman who would eat nothing unless it fell off a plant, because picking fruit was violent. I didn’t hear how she got on.
Helen @ 5, are you sure that’s right? I’ll need to look at it again, but my understanding is that there was one mining area excised from the wild rivers (I think it’s between 10 and 11 on the map above) at Government behest.
From memory, Pearson has been accused of supporting strip mining, but I understand he rejects that absolutely. There is incredible bitterness between the greens, specifically The Wilderness Society and some of the Aboriginal groups in the area. It’s not possible to sort all that out unless you have local knowledge, which is why a post I did on the issue earlier this year is still in the draft can.
Brian,
(from The Wilderness Society)
It is not correct to assume that Wild Rivers impacts adversely on the pastoral industry. It is also not correct to assume this policies and others with a strong environmental focus necessarily pit conservationists against landholders.
The Wild Rivers legislation prevents highly destructive impacts such as large dams, intensive irrigation near rivers and strip mining near rivers and wetlands. For example on Cape York the Wenlock River declaration preventing a huge new bauxite strip mine on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve, because it proposed very close to important rainforest springs.
Wild Rivers does not directly affect the pastoral industry – the impacts here have been grossly overstated in many quarters and it simply does not equate to a loss of “property rights”. In fact it can be strongly argued that the initiative – which is in effect a planning scheme – benefits this industry, along with fishing, tourism and land management. Eg, The Wilderness Society is working with pastoralists in Western Queensland for Wild River protection – http://bit.ly/aLA9uJ.
I should also point out that Traditional Owners in Bob Katter’s electorate of Kennedy very strongly supported Wild Rivers and campaigned with The Wilderness Society for the protection measures – http://bit.ly/bY8QoJ. Many Traditional Owners in the area are now employed as Indigenous Wild River Rangers, where they are supported to look after their land, as well as provide a land management service for pastoralists (which in itself is helping forge better pastoral/indigenous relationships).
Bob Katter and others are opposed to Wild Rivers more as a matter of ideological fixation on irrigation development, and hatred of any broader controls on development, than the actual impacts of the legislation.
I could go on about the many misrepresentations of Wild Rivers, particularly by Noel Pearson and others, but for those interested in reading in detail check out our submission for the Senate Inquiry – https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=3f9b1026-08bf-48d7-bc66-0c945751ccfe.
akn @ 6
“The proper realm for ecological knowledge is confined to non-human nature. Attempts to order human society along ecological lines, ie, based on scientific ecology, will invariably hinder human freedoms.
Human activies are part of the ecosphere. We live on a finite planet and our actions are constrained by the two laws of thermodynmaic. How can you say then that ecological knowledge should be confined to non-human nature?
Mark
An excellent post which presents balanced views about the issue of lamd management.
It is fair to say that farmers are often unfairly targeted by the Greens as environmental bogeymen. The real cluprit is our consumer based society which runs on human wants rather human needs. Clive Hamilton has writen abundanly on this.
OTOH, farmers need to learn how to live with the land, abandon the capitalistic driven farming economy and turn towards primarily producing for our internal market.
phil263 @12: you misapprehend what I’ve written. Living in accord with the discernible laws of ecology, especially in the way that we metabolise and reproduce nature, is not necessarily a a significant problem from my PoV. The problem arises when it is suggested that human social life ought to be modelled along ecological principles so as to dissolve differences between ecological understandings of non-human nature and the social ordering of human society.
The uses of ecology are multiple here. One study of the history of ecology has shown that the science of ecology itself has tended at times to take its framework of understanding of nature from other, dominant but non-scientific discourses over time. (Can’t remember the ref but it is at home and I’ll make it available later).
While it appears that ecosophy has a whole new idea of how to do human social life there are others of us who suggest that there is nothing specially new about, for example, misapplying Darwin’s ideas to human social organisation in order to arrrive at Spencerianism (the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer) or the biological Thatcherism of Dawkin’s “selfish gene” theory.
Thus, as in the above two examples, the misuses of science, I am concerned to limit the valid range of the application of science, ecology in this case, to the metabolic engagement of human with non-human nature. Any values you care to derive from science or non-human nature are properly the realm of metaphysics. In a liberal democracy this means that they are private beliefs that you are free to follow but which you are not free to attempt to impose on me as a central organising principle of human social life.
phil263 @ 13, I’m Brian, Mark is the other one, but thanks.
Glenn @ 11, I said in the post I didn’t want to get into arguing the rights and wrongs of these issues, particularly Wild Rivers. In January this year I read everything I could find on the topic and wrote an expository post, I’d say with about 50 links, at least as long as this one.
I found that the TWS and the opponents of Wild Rivers did not report reliably on each others’ positions, to put it mildly.
What I’m talking about here is the perceptions abroad in the farming community which are likely to line up with Katter’s.
On the impact on grazing, I’d prefer to hear from people with direct experience, but you don’t have to go far to hear testimony dramatically different from what you suggest.
I know that Murandoo Yanner is an Aboriginal leader in the western end of Katter’s electorate. I’ve not heard of Yanner’s attitude to Wild Rivers as such, but I suspect that item 6 on Katter’s list, access to traditional pursuits of fishing and camping might relate to Yanner’s concerns.
Glenn, it seems to me that many complain that this is a future chosen for them by the TWS. It has limitations, I understand, in how many jobs it would generate, and many would aspire to other futures, which they see as compatible with preserving the ecological values of the area.
Also I don’t know numbers, but I understand there are some indigenous pastoralists.
Glenn I just did a skim of my previous post. I don’t think I mentioned the Wenlock River at all. It’s 11 on the map and should be now coloured blue (I copied the image from the previous post).
I’m not across the new bauxite strip mine on the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve, which is probably what Helen @ 5 was referring to. The one I referred to @ 10 was I think coastal.
Still, I fail to see why the Wild Rivers legislation would be needed to protect the government from itself in approving or not approving a mining development, which must do environmental impact studies in any case.
A large part of the inhibition to small-scale developments in the Wild Rivers area is said to be the threshold studies, involving the employment of consultants, which have to be done and then sent off to remote bureaucrats they don’t trust. You might recognise this statement, an Aboriginal voice:
My point is about the difficulty in reconciling opposing views and the complete breakdown of trust.
Hi Brian, a few points:
- Rangers aren’t a future chosen by TWS, they are an opportunity strongly advocated by us, as a positive alternative to jobs in more destructive sectors such as bauxite mining. Many Indigenous people very much want and like these jobs. The Indigenous Wild River Ranger program is a community development model where Government invests in a fee-for-service for conservation, so serious capacities and opportunities are being built. There are now 40 jobs, with another 60 promised – 100 in total, and much more than many destructive mines in the Far North. Noel Pearson refers to these positions as “Green welfare”, which is a very narrow and offensive suggestion, given the Rangers are performing a legitimate environmental service to all Australians, and have real career pathways in the program.
As far as other jobs compatible with preserving ecological values – with you 100%, and we support this sort of development. For instance we partnered with Lonely Planet to produce an eco-cultural tourism map of Cape York, promoting Indigenous businesses and the like.
- As far as “testimony” from pastoralists, that’s fine. The link I provided is testimony that some pastoralists are openly supportive of Wild Rivers. Testimony of some I’ve heard are simply based on misinformation so the facts are important here. The legislation is clear that it does not affect grazing, infrastructure, weed managment etc. Those pastoralists opposing overwhelming do so because they are against Government regulation as a matter of principle.
- The link I provided about Gulf Traditional Owners is a joint media release with TWS and Carpentaria Land Council (Murandoo Yanner as spokes), with Yanner strongly arguing for Wild Rivers. The fact is, Wild River enhances fishing, camping etc, it doesn’t restrict in any way. By preventing dams, river pollution, the health of the river – and fish stocks – are maintained. Native Title rights are also formally protected in the legislation. There has been a vehement and dishonest campaign claiming Wild Rivers does stop this recreational/native title pursuits, but there is simply no basis to these claims whatsoever.
Brian @ 15. Sorry Brian, i did not realise that there were two of you Bahnisches (or three it seems).
Still a very good input. By the way, we use to live on a small acreage property between Rocky and Marlborough, so can relate to what your brother is saying.
Out of curiosity, how many indigineous people has Property Rights Australia represented?
I agree it’s very problematic to assume that indigenous people wish to be a particular type of land manager and not another, those of us who support Aboriginal self-determination need to respect that.
I do wish that people would stop using the language of “locking up” land for conservation. Indeed it’s hard to beleive that a conversation can happen in good faith when it priveleges one type of land management over another.
I’m obviously not from North Queensland, but I have visited on a couple of occasions and it feels very far away from Brisbane, let alone Melbourne or Sydney. As such, locals probably feel resentful of the view that people from those very-far-away places have any rights at all to dictate what happens on that land, regardless of how much compensation is provided.
As to financial compensation, there is a question as to where the rights to be compensated for changes in property rights – or, more broadly, changes in government policy, start and end. Perhaps those rights need broadening in the context of farming subject to increasing environmental restrictions; it’s not however a simple matter.
I don’t know, but I suspect none. They’ve had a very good relationship with Noel Pearson, however.
fb, “locking up” was my choice of term. I’ll say more tonight about what it might mean.
phil263, my brother moved north in the late 60s. His first property (still owned by the family company) was about half an hour north of Marlborough.
Robert, when I worked for the Dept of Education I remember attending a barbeque at a seminar in about 1970. There was a teacher there from Cardwell, after a few drinks, who was sounding off about southern dickheads coming up to tell them what to do. I remember him distinctly saying, “The southern suburban sprawl starts in Townsville!”
Thanks for exploring some of these issues, Brian.
I found it interesting that Bob Katter spoke of his opposition to Qld’s Wild Rivers law in the context of assisting the economic advancement of Aboriginal people, rather than the much wider property rights debate (or at least that is how it seems to have been reported).
As Glenn Walker mentioned above, almost all of the public Aboriginal opposition to Wild Rivers has been on Cape York, very little of which is in Katter’s electorate. Most of the Wild River basins in Katter’s electorate are covered by the Carpentaria Land Council. They have been effusive in their praise of Wild Rivers (including but not only Murandoo Yanner). It is worth having a look at the transcript of the Cairns hearing of the Senate inquiry into Tony Abbott’s private members Bill which purported to overturn Qld’s Wild Rivers laws (this is a separate Senate Inquiry to the one Brian refers to in his post – it was very specifically looking into aspects the Wild Rivers issues.) Submissions, transcripts, Committee report etc at this link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/wildrivers/index.htm
It is clear there are widely diverging and sometimes quite heated views on the Wild Rivers topic, as the Senate Inquiry submissions and transcripts show. It is very unfortunate the issue has become so polarised, as it makes it much harder to resolve the concerns expressed.
These 2 links go to a 2 part piece I did on some aspects of the topic at The Drum http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2910636.htm and http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2910720.htm
I could write heaps on Abbott’s Bill and on the issue more broadly but I won’t do it here.
The issue could well provide a significant test for the Greens and some insight into how they deal with conflict between differing principles which both sit within their general philosophical framework.
Wild Rivers is very likely to continue to be an issue over the next year leading up the state election in Qld – certainly in FNQ and quite possibly in the south of the state too – especially given Warren Entsch’s success in Leichhardt (not just the fact that he won after running on anti-Wild Rivers platform, but also the fact that his general approach to the issue (and many others involving any form of environmental protection) is an antagonistic and inflammatory one.
There is a lot more common ground than is often assumed between environmentalists and farmers, as well as between Aboriginal people and environmentalists being painted as being on opposite sides of the Wild Rivers debate. But as Brian says, it is about the perceptions, and certainly some peoples’ interests are better served by trying to ensure or maintain an antagonistic relationship between the two sides.
I think I know what you mean with the term, Brian – but look forward to your explanation. Likewise, the phrase “alienated from production”. Again, this privileges one form of land management over another. I’m a land manager, I earn my living from these so-called locked up lands, as do thousand of Australians. If conservation lands are left unmanaged in QLD, then that’s a problem, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, but as I said, a good faith discussion is unlikely when the language is so loaded.
A pastoralist looking over the fence at land being managed for conservation and describing it as “locked up for conservation” is as arrogant and foolish as me looking across the fence into a vineyard and describing it as “locked up for viticulture”. It would be rather more valuable for me
to be able to discuss with the adjoining land manager the many ways that we can work constructively to attain mutually beneficial outcomes.
Thanks Andrew (and Brian for starting the discussion, as you can tell we are always eager to present more info on Wild Rivers when the issue crops up),
I think you are on the money that beneath the public discourse and often polarising debate over Wild Rivers there is a lot of common ground between conservation and indigenous and rural interest (and there will be more with the emerging carbon economy). As you know there are also deeper complexities when it comes to Indigenous rights (and the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights) that we need to resolve across all policy areas, not just conservation.
Interesting is that this debate is becoming – and should be – a catalyst for further public discussion about the intersection of Indigenous rights, industrial development, conservation and “free, prior and informed consent”. Wild Rivers is just one flashpoint – the gas hub in the Kimberley, forestry in the Tiwi Islands, nuclear dumps in the NT, are all areas where there is Indigenous support for these sorts of development, as well as Indigenous opposition/support for stronger conservation. These tensions simply can’t be explained away as conservation vs indigenous interests (or the phrase I very much loathe: “green vs black”).
As you say, interesting times ahead with Entsch the perennial agitator, and Abbott the perennial opposer. Our hope is that negotiation, honest debate, open public discussion can flush out the underlying issues and arrive at a place where much of the tension is resolved.
Robert Merkel @ 3
Are these a trick questions ?? I mean what is the difference between a person who owns his/her own home and land and a person who rents this same home and land ?? Do you own your own car, computer, clothes, and other personal property including even perhaps your hammer and sickle or do you merely rent or steal them from someone else ?? Given that land is property then yes, the equitable owner of land has their name appearing on the deed and title in the same way that a bill of sale proves that you own your own hammer and sickle. I’m sure that if you don’t like these arrangements then there are other places in the world where you could preach to the converted.
In answer to your question @ 21 – Compensation is payable for the loss of that right that is entrenched as a profit-à-prendre as registered by conveyance. Again, I’m sure that there are other countries in the world where you could preach that there is no such thing as a profit-à-prendre with respect to any property notwithstanding property that is land. There is no debate here mate, if the Government or the public can’t afford the reversion, in whole or in part, then don’t take it………simple.
I strongly and scornfully reject the incredibly stupid and insulting comment by Sam @12. Brian, are you not moderating this thread?
Stimulating, and well researched as usual Brian. Glad to see some of the ideas deployed in ‘why we disagree about Climate Change’Mike Hulme 2009 applied in specific case. Its a very complicated question and interesting how much coercion will be required to bring people into line with ecological realities. It will in theory be a movable feast, when people become aware of the consequences of their actions ecologically laws and regulations will not be considered coercive, but as maintaining some equality of opportunity. While people remain unaware of the interactions and consequences of their behaviour any restriction will seem oppressive, that is (I think) the logic of market mechanisms such as a price on carbon, they disguise the essential curtailing of our unthinking polluting behaviour.
I personally am not confident that given the level of education in most parts of Australia that people will ever have sufficient confidence in evidence they cannot confirm with their immediate sensory experience. Which of course means that more often or not the relevant ecosystem can be in terminal decline before anyone notices. The root cause of the political problem. Repeated floods, fires, droughts here and round the world may make some of the categories of people of interdependent persuasion respond, but i fail to see how the ‘independent’or individualistic character formations will ever be persuaded, except by coercion.
The political job as Gillard has correctly recognised is to increase the weight of consensus until it is irresistible. Information exercises can and will help up to a point.But that will be an uphill struggle against petrol heads crazed with the euphoria of excess speed, free energy and the illusion of liberty they think they maintain.
Clive Hamilton is acute on these matters, trying to maintain an interdependent viewpoint does seem to incline oneself into in-group/ out- group thinking. But I am reminded when the proverbial shit hits the fan, the default mode of the state is martial law, particularly in face of natural disasters. See fires in Victorian where it did’nt happen and may have helped or saved lives or more recently Christchurch, New Zealand as a result of earthquake it is their only recourse. If as insurers are correct and we will see far more natural disasters, maybe we will get used to more state intervention and accept it as only necessary.
“If you look through Katter’s wishlist (the earlier thread is here) there are quite a few items that could potentially bring him into conflict with the Greens.”
I am sure many Labor, Liberal or Nationals would have a few items that bring them into conlict with their own party. What is the difference? As for the “item” mentiooned, I have concerns that none of us is getting the truth.
Helen,
Brian is away from the keyboard.
I’ve deleted the comment, which was indeed offensive and stupid.
If a comment is deleted, shouldn’t there be a comment saying that the comment is deleted, rather than it disappearing?
If people are replying to a comment later on by number it gets stuffed up when you take one out of sequence.
phil263@ 13
“It is fair to say that farmers are often unfairly targeted by the Greens as environmental bogeymen. The real cluprit is our consumer based society which runs on human wants rather human needs.”
Agreed phil
“OTOH, farmers need to learn how to live with the land, abandon the capitalistic driven farming economy and turn towards primarily producing for our internal market.”
Ok phil, sounds good & I agree with you in part but how can this be achieved? How can farmers “learn” to do this when they are scratching to make a living? Isn’t the economic structure determined on a national level? Shouldn’t the Federal Government in full & proper consultation with farmers bring the unnatural market systems more in line with sustainable systems of nature?
@Stephen,
The number sequence also gets mucked up when we approve comments in moderation, so it’s just one of those things one has to cope with on a moderated blog. Do what I do and link the commentor’s name to the permalink for their comment, and it’s not a problem.
Hi, although this doesn’t specifically relate to this thread, I have had a Marxist analysis of the Australian Greens (written some months ago now) published, which touches on the nature of Greens politics and the divisions within the Greens. I won’t give a run down here, but if people are interested it can be viewed online at http://www.marxistleftreview.org
The Blue-Green, Red-Green talk is nonsense. There have been several attempts by journos to paint The Greens (party) into factions including red/blue, light/dark, big-G/little-g. No doubt it’s supposed to increase the drama, but (not-surprisingly) it is an invented narrative.
It’s also not helpful to conflate environmental lobby groups like TWS with The Greens (party).
The Greens suffer in other areas, but factionalism isn’t one of them. Here are some actual problems that The Greens face:
* The aforementioned conflation of all and sundry environmental lobby groups with the party.
* The growing staff/resources/power of the federal parliamentarians compared to the rest of the party.
* The federal party room’s buy-in of neo-liberal economic principles leaving them on the back-foot in economic matters.
* Continuing attempts to centralise decision making around executive style bodies opposed by those that wish to keep decision making at the grass-roots as much as possible. This tends to split along state lines and is evident in each states operating model. NSW and WA are probably the most decentralised, TAS the most centralised.
* Differences between states on some policies which have crept in often to make the position more moderate (and electable). Differences in drug harm-minimisation policies in TAS compared to NSW spring to mind.
Bob Brown’s eventual retirement is also put forward as a potential problem for The Greens in an attempt to build another narrative – it will lead to power struggles and/or create a power vacuum. More nonsense.
Helen, I’m sorry, I missed that one this morning. Thanks Robert for dealing with it.
fb @ 24 I’ll try to get back to it later tonight, but I’m not talking about looking over the fence. I’m talking about what happens on the landowners property.
Must I cry for the Greens’ because the Media is finding means to categorise!?As I work on a farm and have a similarity with Entsch,that is rail worker background,and a pretty solid contempt for academic approaches to almost everything now,but not from Queensland.I think there will be no problem with Katter either.Perhaps the calm attitude of Andrew Bartlett can talk to Entsch in a reasonable manner via radio interview,serving two purposes Entsch’s and Environmental ones.As a windbag about strawbales etc. there maybe a few appealing increases in jobs and incomes for those who understand and have observed the process of making hay whilst the sunshines.After all farmers respond to income improvements and being respected,aboriginal communities too.Delivering a multi purposeful product off farm to be used at all levels of government works means money back into farmers hands workers and councils.If there was a push across the whole political divides to encourage strawbale growing and using for construction in engineering matters ecology etc. the divisions would only be the real market place..effort and reward for effort measured in selling price.The attitude to bauxite strip mining needs some prior inputs like,can these lands be reclaimed for productive farming and ecologies after extraction and all the approaches to those sites.Simply the employed wild river rangers are in the position also to insure,if mining proceeded both flora and fauna sets and other matters are duly considered.Increasing the intelligent design say of Aboriginal communities isn’t going to disadvantage ecologically important areas, lands for farming, or the prospects of good jobs all round.Entsch would not whip up anti-aboriginal or ecological concern if he knew he could win without doing so.In fact has he done that already!?Rail lines are wonderful things often under utilised like the people who have worked on them.Give him a champion role and he will relish it.Same as Katter.Good ideas and design resonate with most people.
First tonight, if I can indulge myself, I mentioned in the post a conception of personhood which could be reflected in a quote from Ajume Wingo. He is in fact quoting a dictum from John Mbiti:
Sam B @ 35, thanks for that. I was hoping for some comment on how Milne’s crude typology applied to the real life Greens.
Your reminder is timely about the distinction between The Greens and green groups. I find that some rural folk do tend to conflate the two.
Glenn @ 18 you mention 40 ranger type jobs with 60 more to come. Bill Heffernan tells us:
Just to give some context.
I really don’t want this to become the Wild Rivers thread I didn’t want to have. But for people coming to it new, the ABC has a useful backgrounder. I see that’s your photography there, Glenn.
I checked out my draft post and there were 78 links, not 50. One place where there is consistent resistance to the TWS line is Cairnsblog. Scroll down to the Youtube of Mayor Joseph Elu and above it a list of earlier posts.
This one from April 2009 lists 23 issues with the Wild Rivers legislation.
I can see why the pastoralists in the Channel Country might welcome legislation that keeps other interests out and lets them carry on doing exactly what they are doing now. But I’d suggest they take care.
In my draft post, I didn’t get around to considering the situation of the pastoralists in the Gulf Country, which is Katter’s electorate. Holdings there are very large and the land generally flat, I believe. I’m told that the firmest, highest and the best land is typically next to the river.
A Wild Rivers declaration would mean that a strip of land a kilometre wide each side of the river cannot be managed for grazing purposes. Regrowth can be quite rapid in the tropics. The likely result is a tangle of scrub, weeds like rubber vine and a haven for wild pigs and feral cattle. Very likely the pastoralist would end up having to fence off the area.
I’d recommend people interested have a look at Case 2 in David Kempton’s speech at the PRA site.
In the light of what I said above, consider the notion that a family can spend $20 million on a 2.4 million acre property and then have 1 million taken as declared under the Wild Rivers legislation.
The suggested solution by the property owners of a “comprehensive property management plan with conservation outcomes” seems a far better way of approaching mutually satisfying outcomes than a ‘one size fits all’ solution imposed from above.
fb, it’s getting late and this isn’t the vegetation management thread I’d always threatened to do either. I’d suggest you read the Kempton article also and then the one by Phil Sheridan also, taking particular note when “compliance notice” is mentioned.
That’s the ultimate sanction where land really is “locked up”.
It means you have to make good what you were deemed to have cleared illegally. There is another whole saga about how people are so deemed, which is not a pretty story.
A compliance order essentially means that you have to fence of the land, make no productive use of it, allow the natural vegetation to regrow over the next 40 years, but keep out the weed species.
For no recompense and while you still pay rates as though the land were productive in the agricultural sense.
In one case a compliance notice specified 13 polygon shapes marked by 169 geosat positions. That case was contested and thrown out because you can’t be asked to do the impossible, even in Qld, provided the judge decides that way.
Mystified @ 28
“I personally am not confident that given the level of education in most parts of Australia that people will ever have sufficient confidence in evidence they cannot confirm with their immediate sensory experience.”
Of course Mystified you can produce evidence of this and presumably you have firsthand knowledge of “Education in most parts of Australia” or at the very least even visited “Most parts of Australia” ? Perhaps you have a notional theory on a category of person that is self aware that being ignorant is a product of their poor education however is also arrogant at the same time; is this person either genetically inspired, self qualified or both ?
The stupidity in describing a person that has an “immediate sensory experience” or, an observed and recorded testament, has an implied low “level of education” is breathtaking in the extreme. Other than the back of a Weetbix box, where did you get your education from ?
Just as you claim that: “Repeated floods, fires, droughts here and round the world may make some of the categories of people of interdependent persuasion respond, but i fail to see how………..” is an absolute supposition on your part. What part of smoothed or manipulated data or a computer model trumps empirical evidence ? I’m sure that the Courts of evidence would be interested in your minority report theory, and specifically the notion that you are able to reach a guilty verdict based on an incomplete chain of evidence at best, or a broken chain of evidence at worst and at the very worst, no evidence at all.
Now tell the ‘left of centre’ or even the ‘right of centre’ where you find the justice in social engineering fulfilled by coercion and, how you will find the peace from the consequential anarchy ? Or, did you win your last battle by at least a 100 metres ?
# Helen, 5 sure got a first class post in dealing so effectively with some of the gutter rubbish proffered earlier in the thread.
All Pearson sees are the commission fees and gives far less of a hoot about indigenes rights to their own lands than any Green, because he hopes to profit as a middleman from the accessing of indigenous lands by developers.
Andrew @ 23, I’ve just found the time to follow up the links and would like to compliment you on two sensible articles. The first provides useful background, including the Cape York Peninsula Heads of Agreement of 1996, negotiated with the involvement of Rick Farley, which has now fallen asunder.
The second IMO comes to the nub of the matter:
Tom Calma had expressed concerns about this earlier.
You then go on to say that the Wild Rivers legislation works well for some Aborinal peoples, but:
Yes, “preferred outcome”, whose preferred outcome?
Then you cite Professor George Williams as saying that any new legislation should enshrine the rights of Indigenous peoples all over Australia to an effective veto on what happens on their land, ‘their’ land in which they have substantive property rights in the common sense as distinct from Native Title rights.
I’m afraid Margaret Pestorius was right when she said:
We need empowerment at the local level, not disempowerment. The same principle applies to pastoralists and vegetation management, although the veto principle would not apply.
The answer in that case, I think, may lie in the direction of “comprehensive property management plans with conservation outcomes” as I suggested here. Such plans can harness the particularities of circumstance for each property and capitalise on local knowledge. This accords with what the Productivity Commission said on the issue when it looked at it.
This also picks up on the essential freedoms identified at the end of akn’s comment @ 14.
I would also draw attention to Paul Norton’s concept of radical democracy which
Or penalties from a coercive state.
But the state might profitably rethink its role and return to the support of the kind it used to provide in Landcare and extension services. Plus rewarding good behaviour.
And finally, where property rights need to be reduced or acquired by the state in the interests of the public good, then fair compensation should be paid, as supported by the Senate Inquiry.
Yes, this.
But. This ignores the unavoidable fact that in any country which is not a mere anarchy, there are some activities which even freeholders are discouraged from doing. You might apply this principle, which is in itself a good one, to allow Mr Pearson and his favoured corporations to pollute the headwaters of major rivers. But somewhere there is a line to be drawn. would you want to stand by if the land was given over to heroin poppies? If the land was leased to the US for atomic testing? If the land was leased to an unfriendly country for wargames?
Unlikely scenarios, sure. But to me, the pollution of the headwaters of major rivers is a pretty dire scenario.
This also fails to take into account the fact that not all indigenous people in Cape York are in favour of strip mining, and the fact that the WR legislation is not going to outlaw development, merely destruction of headwaters.
As water is going to be the new oil in the latter part of this century, I would appeal to Pearson’s self interest to back off and think of new ways to make a buck.
Helen @ 46 “Unlikely scenarios, sure”
Helen may I suggest that they are hugely unlikely & does your augment no favors. If wild rivers were to be removed tomorrow the Cape wouldn’t fall into a lawless vacuum. All other laws & regulations will still stand including council approvals, environmental & criminal codes.
And please can we have a mature debate without only focusing on Pearson & exaggerating his relationship with developers & miners who are going to rip the Cape apart from one side to the other.
There are many other aboriginal people who live on the Cape & Gulf with a variety of views. Perhaps your reaction to the quote on aboriginal peoples to give consent indicates impatience & a lack of understanding of how aboriginal culture works in this context. Not that I will now give you a authoritive run down on aboriginal culture because I know enough to know I know stuff all.
* Ecological wisdom = Organism smarts. Are plants smart? I don’t know. How can plants and animals be wise?
* Social justice = Communism.
* Grassroots democracy = Electorates who vote, only to be sideswiped by preferences. Grassroots democracy can be achieved better by abandoning preferences
* Nonviolence = anyone who watches sport knows that a value of non violence is the first step in denying our human nature.
There. I have had my say.
Thankyou Brian for the links to Lawyer David Kempton and Barrister at Law Philip Sheridan’s speeches. In case there are concerns about a political balance I would refer to Ken Mackay’s contribution to the debate
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9264 only white fella development allowed
Ken Mackay is a former Queensland Labor Government Ministerial adviser now working for the Union movement. He refers to the use of the precautionary principle where environmental values must always prevail over human welfare. “Every decision must be confined to preserving the river system, and because the legislation calls up the precautionary principle when the impacts are uncertain, decision makers are legislative bound to refuse the application.”
He finishes by saying “John Howard refused to apologise to indigenous Australians for their past brutal treatment and virtual enslavery by European settlement who in the future will be called on to apologise for our generations decision to entrench indigenous poverty”.
In Property Rights Australia Submission to the Senate Enquiry into Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/wildrivers/submissions.htm
We demonstrated in the Wild Rivers Act 11 different applications for development are to be treated as
(a) the application is taken not to be a properly made application for that act;
(b) the assessment manager must refuse to receive the application
This enables a string of Senators, Ministers, and the Premier herself to claim disingenuously “Where are the applications?”
The Wild Rivers Declarations are the Greens Political Achilles Heel as is demonstrated by the scramble of high profile advocates to attempt to defend the indefensible. It is also demonstrated once again by Noel Pearson’s appeal in today’s Australian to Rob Oakshott to get justice with a conservative alliance.
No reasonable person with a social justice conscience should condemn a whole race of people’s greatest aspirations to becoming rangers in their own virtual human zoo.
Helen @ 46, certainly what happens upstream is of legitimate concern to others. But the Wild Rivers code of 2007 itself tells us that there are 13 other pieces of legislation which have a bearing on the same issues.
As yet I have no direct evidence that Pearson favours strip mining. If he does, his own country is hundreds of kilometres further south, and there is indeed a question whether his views should have any relevance.
I don’t know enough about the law, about the relationships and indigenous politics on the Cape to make a judgement one way or the other.
grumpy @43
Thanks for giving weight to my point about the difficulty of negotiating a sustainable and political outcome. You mistake observation for advocacy. I am against coercion and top down solutions wherever possible, but it seems, as many have noted,the internet environment itself encourages intemperate attitudes which does not bode well for building reciprocity and trust necessary for our our future. As Mike Hulm noted in work I previously mentioned:’It is not surprising, therefore that the unsettling challenges of climate change call forth extreme voices: a return to the authoritarian certainties of the ideological nation-state and the rise of a new radical civic environmentalism…We seem ill equipped to bring an unruly climate and its implicated global citizenry under an appropriate form of governance.’(p.310) As for anarchy climate change has already produced all too much. Has anyone even noticed how many died in Mozambique food riots and its implications? All too few. One more quote from Hulm: ‘Rather than a crisis of the environment or a failure of the market, climate change may prove ultimately to be a crisis of governance.’(P.310)Thanks again Brian, for a case study on how intractable our situation has become.
Mystified @ 51
Your dog-whistling and misdirection won’t wash. So I take it you cannot provide any evidence of your claims @ 28 that I disputed @ 43 ?
Additionally you state that (@ 51) – “I am against coercion and top down solutions wherever possible,………..” which seems to grossly inconsistent with your statements @ 28 where you said – “Its a very complicated question and interesting how much coercion will be required to bring people into line with ecological realities.” – And again a little further on you restate – “……….but i fail to see how the ‘independent’or individualistic character formations will ever be persuaded, except by coercion.” – And backed up with your magical powers of precognition with – “………when people become aware of the consequences of their actions ecologically laws and regulations will not be considered coercive,…………” – and topped up with your tropical fruit cake – “………any restriction will seem oppressive,………….”
Really, what part of “Seem” oppressive is only an impression or sensation of being oppressed ?
You said that – “You mistake observation for advocacy.” – Well there you go, I have not observed you “Advocating” coercion or any other unsubstantiated claim, so your intention is….what ?
Two volumes of “My Struggle” were published in 1925 and 1926 respectively, will history repeat itself with the publication of a third ? I can’t wait to see if it only seems oppressive whilst advocating no adverse effect.
Ron @ 49 first comments are auto-moderated. Should you be moved to comment again it should appear immediately. So welcome!
The linked Mckay article is important in the statistics it gives and in drawing attention to the Integrated Planning Act:
In terms of the triple bottom line mentioned in the post – ecology, society, economy – The Integrated Planning Act facilitates finding a balance related to particular circumstances and local aspirations. Wild Rivers gives absolute priority to one of the three with implications for the other two.
You refer to the PRA submission to the Senate inquiry (no. 16 this list.) I’ve spoken to Joanne Rea who helped with the submission. Her knowledge of Wild Rivers goes way beyond what my poor brain can cope with. It does demonstrate, however, how impenetrable and intimidating the legislation is to normal mortals.
Finally, given your association with Noel Pearson you might be interested in the fact that we’ve had a whole thread on it. My comment was @ 50 and be sure to read Paul Noton @ 53.
Dave Kimble @ 54 would also be of prime interest to you.
Brian:
Andrew Fraser in the OO:
Relevance maybe not, but traction and a media megaphone, definitely.
David Kimble on Agmates website:
Helen, I have to fly, so I’ll look at that in more detail tonight.
On the consultation issue, I was aware that this is contested ground. In my draft post, I linked to this segment and then commented:
McIntyre, the lawyer interviewed with Gerhardt Pearson, says that that the consultation process used by the Qld Government was “invalid” under the Native Title Act, which requires the consent of the title holder. If consent is refused the matter can then be decided by the National Native Title Tribunal.
I gather that this is to be tested in a legal challenge.
Helen, I’ve read the links, all the discussion and followed up the links given there.
Noel Pearson addressed PRA in June last year and consequent to that the LNP conference in September. I think it certain we’ll have an LNP government in 2011 and I’ll be astonished if they don’t do something about Wild Rivers and vegetation management. Just what they’ll do and whether their supporters will be pleased or disappointed I don’t know.
You’ve made a case that Pearson supported the Cape Alumina mine. If you follow the links Dave Kimble gives you can see the stark difference and why the company may find the 500m buffer unviable.
I don’t like strip mining, but I can’t have an opinion whether 200, 300 or 500 metres is appropriate. 200 seems skinny.
Then you might ask who is advising the Minister. That’s another can of worms and I don’t want to go there.
I did see a reference to training aboriginal workers in one of the links. I’ve no idea whether that was likely to happen.
I don’t see a warrant to question Pearson’s motivation in relation to possible shareholdings. Start-ups are risky at the best of times.
Pearson is questioning why one mine is OK and another is not and gives this answer.
I’ve got no comment on that except that it would seem to explain his rage.
As to who he is associated with, we could also get into territory about who the government employs, where green groups get their funding, and what really is perceived to be behind all this, and I most assuredly don’t want to go there.
I will link to this piece from Pearson in 2006. The sense of betrayal is alive and well amongst pastoralists who thought there was a deal done in 1996.
I’m not advocating for Pearson, just trying to understand the issues and his advocacy.
Wild Rivers is not just some harmless piece of legislation that TWS would have us believe just puts a stop to high impact activity. Of 13 Acts mentioned in the Wild Rivers Act 2005 where it was previously possible to get a permit for certain activities, these now have been excluded totally from the areas of High Conservation, which is most of it.
As for the exclusions for the PNG Pipeline and some mining projects: the State Government excluded these all on their own with no reference to Noel Pearson or anyone else as they were unwilling to forgo the royalties. This really is a case of TWS being able to get away with their insidious lies as most people are so far away and are not familiar with the on-ground reality.
Add to that the demonisation of anyone who might oppose it by TWS and we have the yet another example of environmental legislation being perceived as benign by those who know no better.
What follows is lengthy but there is no other way to demonstrate the sheer dishonesty of those who say that the legislation is just targeting strip mining or “irrigation” farming.
The following is a cut and paste from the legislation [Part 6, Amendments of other acts] with no motive other than to show that applications for most activities will not even be accepted.
[Jo gave at least another 10 examples, which have been left out in the interests of brevity. - Mod]