Are Mining Interests behind Aboriginal community closures?

I see Abbott is posting again

Here is the way to go.

The people in these communities are trained up to build the facilities these communities need and also to maintain these facilities. Other members of these communities are trained up to be the teachers, doctors and nurses so as to at least make an effort in improving the quality of life in these communities. That’s the Australian way.

I really don’t want to come across as being racist but your idea is pure fantasy.

The gap between what you propose and what is currently realistic is massive.

(and just to be clear, I am against the closure of these communities)

I see Abbott is posting again

pazza proving the ideal counterpoint. I don’t know which one I take less seriously.

Here is the way to go.

The people in these communities are trained up to build the facilities these communities need and also to maintain these facilities. Other members of these communities are trained up to be the teachers, doctors and nurses so as to at least make an effort in improving the quality of life in these communities. That’s the Australian way.

I really don’t want to come across as being racist but your idea is pure fantasy.

The gap between what you propose and what is currently realistic is massive.

(and just to be clear, I am against the closure of these communities)

Probably true, but, if the education system is allowed to be more open and accessible to all, that would certainly help achieve it.

If anyone wants to do more than just jaw about this sort of thing, feel free to at least sign the petition below for a start, & if you can, dip into your pocket to help fight the [email protected]s.

As a collective, the people have much more power than big anything, &/or Governments, & the new platforms social media & the interwebs now provide means that power is available to be used & enforced, easier than ever before, just have to get enough people off thier collective apathetic, all talk, no action arrses to reach a critical mass.

I’ve been engaged in Get Up & others (WWF, ACF & the like) & reckon there has been a 60 -70% success rate on the petitions over the past few years, you really can make a difference without leaving your armchairs.

Get involved & push the idea & links out to as many as you can, these things really are the answer if enough people get on board…

https://getup.org.au/campaigns/mining/help-us-fight-adani/help-us-fight-adani?t=nVeNYHjo4&utm_content=8041&utm_campaign=Urgent%20legal%20help%20required&utm_source=blast&utm_medium=email
Hi xxx,

It’s Adrian Burragubba here. Adani is playing dirty, and we need your help.

When we rejected Indian mining company Adani’s offer to exploit our land, they took aggressive legal action to overrule our rights just six days later. Now we have to fight to protect our land in court.

They have betrayed our trust and are getting set to destroy our land and our culture. You’ve pledged your support, but now I’m going to have to ask you, if you can, to help me again.

We face losing everything that is our inheritance. But to mount this fight to protect our heritage, we need more than our conviction and courage. We urgently need funds to mount a legal challenge and appeal against Adani’s action. Can you please make a donation so we can fight Adani in court?

https://getup.org.au/campaigns/mining/help-us-fight-adani/help-us-fight-adani?t=nVeNYHjo4&utm_content=8041&utm_campaign=Urgent%20legal%20help%20required&utm_source=blast&utm_medium=email

Adani is trying everything, and from the beginning have shown their arrogant, disrespectful treatment of our law and customs. They have misrepresented us, and they have betrayed us. They took action to remove our rights through a legal system designed to favour big mining over the rights of Indigenous peoples. It seems they’ll stop at nothing to get their mine, which will destroy our ancestral land and the underpinnings of our lore and culture.

If we can raise enough money, we will appeal the National Native Title Tribunal’s decision to allow the Queensland Government to issue mining leases to Adani, despite our refusal to enter an agreement with the company. The Tribunal even recognised that we have not given our consent or agreement to the mine, but still overruled our internationally recognised rights in favour of Adani.

The Tribunal has sanctioned the destruction of our ancestral lands and cultural heritage on the grounds that it’s in the ‘public interest’. We will contest the idea that building one of the world’s largest coal mines is good for the people and the country.

Our right to self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent is being trampled.

We have to fight back, but we can only do it with the help of our supporters. Can you please get behind us to fight for our rights and our land in court by donating to our fighting fund? http://www.getup.org.au/stand-with-us

The truth is we’re up against a multi-billion dollar company and a legal system that makes it very tough for traditional owners. We know we’ve got a strong, righteous case to run, but we’re not going to leave it at that.

We’ll continue to fight for our rights through the courts, and look to international law if need be. We will visit investment banks around the world to stop the project getting funding. And if it comes to it, we will take our fight all the way to the United Nations.

This fight will define our people and be a landmark moment for Indigenous rights and climate change in Australia. Can you help us defeat Adani by donating to our fighting fund?

Adani think they can walk all over us but they’ve never seen anything like this. Our lands and our way of life, and the legacy of our ancestors, mean too much to our people to rollover. We are here to fight and we won’t stop until our land is protected.

Adrian Burragubba,
on behalf of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council
for the Wangan and Jagalingou people

PS - After I first wrote to you and others, Wangan and Jagalingou people were overwhelmed by the response. To know that more than 90,000 people have chosen to stand with us as we fight to protect our land and our culture from Adani has given us real strength and confidence. On behalf of Wangan and Jagalingou people who are opposed to this mine, we sincerely thank you.

https://getup.org.au/campaigns/mining/help-us-fight-adani/help-us-fight-adani?t=nVeNYHjo4&utm_content=8041&utm_campaign=Urgent%20legal%20help%20required&utm_source=blast&utm_medium=email

Heres another example… (wont post any more unless directly subject relevant)

Hi xxx

Five bad ideas and five good ideas – what’s your pick?

Every year, our government hands out billions of dollars to big polluting companies through tax breaks and subsidies.

While the rest of the world takes steps to cut pollution, our government lets these giants pollute with abandon. Even worse, it actually pays them to pollute.

Right now, Joe Hockey is busy looking for ways to save the government money. Next week he’ll hand over the Federal Budget.
Five really bad ways to spend public money in the Federal Budget:

1.Pay Glencore Xstrata $109 million to pollute.
 
2.Pay BHP Billiton $93 million to pollute.
 
3.Pay Peabody $58 million to pollute.
 
4.Pay Rio Tinto $57 million to pollute.
 
5.Pay Anglo American $49 million to pollute.

Cutting handouts to Big Coal and other polluters will save the Budget $15 billion over four years.

Fifteen billion goes a long way. Just think of all the ways that money could make Australia a better place:
Five really good ways to spend public money in the Federal Budget:

1.Cut pollution with smart rules that make polluters pay and invest in clean energy.
 
2.Fund Indigenous rangers to look after country.
 
3.Protect the water catchments that provide our drinking water.
 
4.Create a threatened species recovery fund.
 
5.Formally require governments to consider the environment in decision making.

Fifty thousand reasons to speak out and not stay silent at budget time

Our government has a duty of care to protect life. 42,859 people have already signed our petition with one simple message to Treasurer Joe Hockey: Put an end to big polluter handouts. Let’s make it 50,000. Will you add your name ?

Sign the petition:
TO: Treasurer Joe Hockey
"Put an end to big polluter handouts."

https://action.org.au/end-big-polluter-handouts?&utm_medium=email&utm_source=acflive&utm_content=1&utm_campaign=2015-04-30-Big-polluter-budget-petition&source=2015-04-30-Big-polluter-budget-petition

Thank you,

Kelly

Kelly O’Shanassy
CEO
Australian Conservation Foundation

P.S. Want all the details? Read ACF’s research: Subsidising Big Coal: Handouts to Australia’s biggest coal mining companies through the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme and our budget submission Budget ’15 gives the government a stark choice: back big polluters or the people.

They are being closed because to keep them open is basically inhumane. I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with keeping them living in substandard conditions.

The mining argument is a nonsense argument.

Sorry mate, what's your first hand experience here? I work in indigenous youth work, and I can tell you we are having a lot of success having kids who have left country, got into trouble being sent back to community to straighten out.

They are not all inhumane squallers, infact I’d go as far as to say most are not. They are not the ritz, but people are happy living there.

I’m telling you the answer is sustainability. They can be powered from renewables.

You can't look at this issue without recognising that many of these remote communities are unmitigated social disasters. All quality of life markers are incredibly low in these communities despite an average of $80k spent per person annually. Alcoholism, sexual abuse of minors, literacy and life expectancy are all big issues that successive governments have been unable to address.

I’m not sure that closing these communities is the best way of tackling these problems, but something has to be done. In particular, allowing children to be raised in such conditions is inhumane. I can understand why some would think moving residents to locations closer to government resources (eg. health and education) would in some way improve the lot of people living in remote communities, but equally I can understand that many residents would be rightfully upset at having their homes taken away.

Honestly I don’t know what the best course of action is. But I do know that allowing the cycle of poverty to continue without some change in strategy is unacceptable. That we have people living in third world conditions in this country is a national disgrace.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but a lot of that is way off the mark. For starters these issues are not nearly as wide spread as they are made out to be in the media, alcoholism is a problem, and the vast majority of problems in those communities stem from that. There are hotspots for that though, Northern WA is really bad, but is improving some great programs being run out there.

From a cost perspective, sustainability is key. Renewable infrastructure for energy would be amazing. Southern NT health are working very hard to get that up and running.

Closing them would result in 2 outcomes,

Half the population as said before would become refugee in their own country, the other would stay and probably die.

I'm telling you the answer is sustainability. They can be powered from renewables.
You can't look at this issue without recognising that many of these remote communities are unmitigated social disasters. All quality of life markers are incredibly low in these communities despite an average of $80k spent per person annually. Alcoholism, sexual abuse of minors, literacy and life expectancy are all big issues that successive governments have been unable to address.

I’m not sure that closing these communities is the best way of tackling these problems, but something has to be done. In particular, allowing children to be raised in such conditions is inhumane. I can understand why some would think moving residents to locations closer to government resources (eg. health and education) would in some way improve the lot of people living in remote communities, but equally I can understand that many residents would be rightfully upset at having their homes taken away.

Honestly I don’t know what the best course of action is. But I do know that allowing the cycle of poverty to continue without some change in strategy is unacceptable. That we have people living in third world conditions in this country is a national disgrace.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but a lot of that is way off the mark. For starters these issues are not nearly as wide spread as they are made out to be in the media, alcoholism is a problem, and the vast majority of problems in those communities stem from that. There are hotspots for that though, Northern WA is really bad, but is improving some great programs being run out there.

From a cost perspective, sustainability is key. Renewable infrastructure for energy would be amazing. Southern NT health are working very hard to get that up and running.

Closing them would result in 2 outcomes,

Half the population as said before would become refugee in their own country, the other would stay and probably die.

So, basically land locked boat people. Now I understand .... they are just turning back the boats.

It’s a really difficult one, weighing up the importance of the people’s

I’m telling you the answer is sustainability. They can be powered from renewables.
You can't look at this issue without recognising that many of these remote communities are unmitigated social disasters. All quality of life markers are incredibly low in these communities despite an average of $80k spent per person annually. Alcoholism, sexual abuse of minors, literacy and life expectancy are all big issues that successive governments have been unable to address.

I’m not sure that closing these communities is the best way of tackling these problems, but something has to be done. In particular, allowing children to be raised in such conditions is inhumane. I can understand why some would think moving residents to locations closer to government resources (eg. health and education) would in some way improve the lot of people living in remote communities, but equally I can understand that many residents would be rightfully upset at having their homes taken away.

Honestly I don’t know what the best course of action is. But I do know that allowing the cycle of poverty to continue without some change in strategy is unacceptable. That we have people living in third world conditions in this country is a national disgrace.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but a lot of that is way off the mark. For starters these issues are not nearly as wide spread as they are made out to be in the media, alcoholism is a problem, and the vast majority of problems in those communities stem from that. There are hotspots for that though, Northern WA is really bad, but is improving some great programs being run out there.

From a cost perspective, sustainability is key. Renewable infrastructure for energy would be amazing. Southern NT health are working very hard to get that up and running.

Closing them would result in 2 outcomes,

Half the population as said before would become refugee in their own country, the other would stay and probably die.

What part of that is way off the mark? All of those issues have been widely recognised as key problems, and are statistically verifiable.

I’m not saying that closing down remote communities is the answer. I honestly don’t know what the solution is for those living in poverty in remote communities.

For starters, the child abuse claims that partly led to the Nt intervention (under Howard?) were proven to be false, according to the article.

It's a really difficult one, weighing up the importance of the people's
I'm telling you the answer is sustainability. They can be powered from renewables.
You can't look at this issue without recognising that many of these remote communities are unmitigated social disasters. All quality of life markers are incredibly low in these communities despite an average of $80k spent per person annually. Alcoholism, sexual abuse of minors, literacy and life expectancy are all big issues that successive governments have been unable to address.

I’m not sure that closing these communities is the best way of tackling these problems, but something has to be done. In particular, allowing children to be raised in such conditions is inhumane. I can understand why some would think moving residents to locations closer to government resources (eg. health and education) would in some way improve the lot of people living in remote communities, but equally I can understand that many residents would be rightfully upset at having their homes taken away.

Honestly I don’t know what the best course of action is. But I do know that allowing the cycle of poverty to continue without some change in strategy is unacceptable. That we have people living in third world conditions in this country is a national disgrace.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but a lot of that is way off the mark. For starters these issues are not nearly as wide spread as they are made out to be in the media, alcoholism is a problem, and the vast majority of problems in those communities stem from that. There are hotspots for that though, Northern WA is really bad, but is improving some great programs being run out there.

From a cost perspective, sustainability is key. Renewable infrastructure for energy would be amazing. Southern NT health are working very hard to get that up and running.

Closing them would result in 2 outcomes,

Half the population as said before would become refugee in their own country, the other would stay and probably die.

What part of that is way off the mark? All of those issues have been widely recognised as key problems, and are statistically verifiable.

I’m not saying that closing down remote communities is the answer. I honestly don’t know what the solution is for those living in poverty in remote communities.

That you inferred this was the issue with all of them. It’s not

It's a really difficult one, weighing up the importance of the people's
I'm telling you the answer is sustainability. They can be powered from renewables.
You can't look at this issue without recognising that many of these remote communities are unmitigated social disasters. All quality of life markers are incredibly low in these communities despite an average of $80k spent per person annually. Alcoholism, sexual abuse of minors, literacy and life expectancy are all big issues that successive governments have been unable to address.

I’m not sure that closing these communities is the best way of tackling these problems, but something has to be done. In particular, allowing children to be raised in such conditions is inhumane. I can understand why some would think moving residents to locations closer to government resources (eg. health and education) would in some way improve the lot of people living in remote communities, but equally I can understand that many residents would be rightfully upset at having their homes taken away.

Honestly I don’t know what the best course of action is. But I do know that allowing the cycle of poverty to continue without some change in strategy is unacceptable. That we have people living in third world conditions in this country is a national disgrace.

I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but a lot of that is way off the mark. For starters these issues are not nearly as wide spread as they are made out to be in the media, alcoholism is a problem, and the vast majority of problems in those communities stem from that. There are hotspots for that though, Northern WA is really bad, but is improving some great programs being run out there.

From a cost perspective, sustainability is key. Renewable infrastructure for energy would be amazing. Southern NT health are working very hard to get that up and running.

Closing them would result in 2 outcomes,

Half the population as said before would become refugee in their own country, the other would stay and probably die.

What part of that is way off the mark? All of those issues have been widely recognised as key problems, and are statistically verifiable.

I’m not saying that closing down remote communities is the answer. I honestly don’t know what the solution is for those living in poverty in remote communities.

That you inferred this was the issue with all of them. It’s not

I said “many” of these communities have these issues.

For starters, the child abuse claims that partly led to the Nt intervention (under Howard?) were proven to be false, according to the article.

There have been quite a few reports that show that sexual abuse of minors is chronically under-reported (due to many reasons), and is endemic is some communities. Pretending it isn’t a problem does no one any favours.

And again, I’m not saying that closing down remote communities is the answer to this issue and others, or that I have any answers myself. But these issues need to be addressed even if they are uncomfortable topics to deal with.

Going off that, I think we need to shut down Dandenong.

Now there’s a good idea!

Ben, can I just clarify, are you saying that the people living in these communities couldn’t survive without Gvt intervention so any idea of an actual traditional lifestyle isn’t possible? I thought that was what was being sought, some form of autonomy. Is this related to the actual land not being able to provide, loss of traditional skills or is it an adoption & therefore reliance on assistance that would be very difficult to break? I guess what I’m asking is, do the people in these communities want a traditional life with its pro & cons or do they want to adopt at least some “modern” (for want of a better term) concepts?

Some modern concepts but to be able to maintain their culture. By that I mean power, waste management, medical services and education.

Autonomy is key, so is sustainability.

basically seeking a version of their culture that might have existed if anglo types had not tried to erradicate them for 150 years or so?

What might have happened if europeans rocked up in the late 1700’s and treated them with respect and like human beings right from the start?

“grr that’s ridiculous they either have to go back to no pants and sharp sticks or all get law degrees and want to drive porches! How can they acknowledge the reality of european contact 200 years ago and yet not want to assimilate into the culture that killed 90% of them and then tried social experiments get rid of the remainder? And now they want govt. assistance to stay on land that mining companies will pay the government to use? Why won’t they just stop being problematic and start being profitable?!?!”

Going off that, I think we need to shut down Dandenong.

Now there’s a good idea!

Ben, can I just clarify, are you saying that the people living in these communities couldn’t survive without Gvt intervention so any idea of an actual traditional lifestyle isn’t possible? I thought that was what was being sought, some form of autonomy. Is this related to the actual land not being able to provide, loss of traditional skills or is it an adoption & therefore reliance on assistance that would be very difficult to break? I guess what I’m asking is, do the people in these communities want a traditional life with its pro & cons or do they want to adopt at least some “modern” (for want of a better term) concepts?


Is that relevant?

I mean you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

The indigenous peoples have copped probably the worse the West has to offer (awful diet, leading to diabetes and other lifestyle diseases, actual introduced diseases, destruction of social structures and continuity through stolen generation / being moved off the land / our destruction of habitat & introduction of pests which impact native food sources & climate change / organised warfare, and of course alcohol and other drugs).
You can’t just take that back, now, and cut the power lines.

If you could, sure, turn back the clock to 1765 & some might go back to full traditional living off the land might be a viable thing, but we can’t do that.

Going off that, I think we need to shut down Dandenong.

Now there’s a good idea!

Ben, can I just clarify, are you saying that the people living in these communities couldn’t survive without Gvt intervention so any idea of an actual traditional lifestyle isn’t possible? I thought that was what was being sought, some form of autonomy. Is this related to the actual land not being able to provide, loss of traditional skills or is it an adoption & therefore reliance on assistance that would be very difficult to break? I guess what I’m asking is, do the people in these communities want a traditional life with its pro & cons or do they want to adopt at least some “modern” (for want of a better term) concepts?


Is that relevant?

I mean you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

The indigenous peoples have copped probably the worse the West has to offer (awful diet, leading to diabetes and other lifestyle diseases, actual introduced diseases, destruction of social structures and continuity through stolen generation / being moved off the land / our destruction of habitat & introduction of pests which impact native food sources & climate change / organised warfare, and of course alcohol and other drugs).
You can’t just take that back, now, and cut the power lines.

If you could, sure, turn back the clock to 1765 & some might go back to full traditional living off the land might be a viable thing, but we can’t do that.

you forgot the original near genocide of 90 percent of the population and special dispensation to keep opium legal in australia long after it was banned in the rest of the empire so that the indigenous workers could be kept manageable.

Going off that, I think we need to shut down Dandenong.

Now there’s a good idea!

Ben, can I just clarify, are you saying that the people living in these communities couldn’t survive without Gvt intervention so any idea of an actual traditional lifestyle isn’t possible? I thought that was what was being sought, some form of autonomy. Is this related to the actual land not being able to provide, loss of traditional skills or is it an adoption & therefore reliance on assistance that would be very difficult to break? I guess what I’m asking is, do the people in these communities want a traditional life with its pro & cons or do they want to adopt at least some “modern” (for want of a better term) concepts?


Is that relevant?

I mean you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

The indigenous peoples have copped probably the worse the West has to offer (awful diet, leading to diabetes and other lifestyle diseases, actual introduced diseases, destruction of social structures and continuity through stolen generation / being moved off the land / our destruction of habitat & introduction of pests which impact native food sources & climate change / organised warfare, and of course alcohol and other drugs).
You can’t just take that back, now, and cut the power lines.

If you could, sure, turn back the clock to 1765 & some might go back to full traditional living off the land might be a viable thing, but we can’t do that.

you forgot the original near genocide of 90 percent of the population and special dispensation to keep opium legal in australia long after it was banned in the rest of the empire so that the indigenous workers could be kept manageable.

We do have a very dark* history in our treatment of Indigenous Australians.

*do not turn that into a racist statement