|
Senator
warns against Cox Peninsula visitor permit Northern
Territory Country Liberal Party Senator Nigel Scullion is concerned about any
future arrangements that could see visitors to the Cox Peninsula, west of Darwin,
requiring a permit. |
| Oppose
land claims Aboriginal organisations operate in an overt, racist manner, demanding non-Aboriginals grovel for permits when we wish to (access) areas previously open to all. The Kenbi land claim threatens to restrict the lifestyle of thousands of NT people, and is against the interest of the majority. What's happened to democracy? John
Lively, |
| Rebuttal:
to White-mail ploy If
the Cox Peninsula (CP) was a cattle station (and there are some bigger than the
CP in the Northern Territory) there would be no outcry about 'limited access'.
Whereas all tourist destinations in the NT under the control of Parks and Wildlife have restrictions on access, animals, firearms, etc... Locals on the CP rarely go beyond the Hotel, the rubbish tip and a few fishing spots nearby. "Crocodile Dundees" they're not. These are simply ploys to 'white-mail' Aboriginal people into making concessions. The reality is that most ammenities on the Cox Peninsula are situated in the area settled by non-Aboriginals (Mandorah), including access to Darwin by ferry. Aboriginal access to ammenities is eternally challenged by Mandorah residents, on the basis of race. Most "Aboriginal organizations" are NT or Federal Government Departments, with an economic interest in maintaining the cultural and economic infrastructure which has proven so deleterious to traditional Aboriginal people. A fact, that members of these groups will acknowledge privately and which has been publically espoused by Kevin Gilbert, Murrandoo Yanner, Gary Foley and other Aboriginal activists. So this whining is fairly incomprehensible to me, apart from it being the habitual hate-engendering, so beloved of the CLP and their 'left wing' the Labor Party. Scullion's use
of "detriment" is intentional. Non-Aboriginal Senator Herron (since replaced by Ruddock) is to judge whether giving control of land stolen by non-Aboriginals to Aboriginal people, will cause "detriment" to non-Aboriginals. My belief is that innovative and appropriate alternatives to the "White Plans for Black lands" proposals for the Cox Peninsula could (and should) be enacted. Obviously the old ideas (19th Century) still being promulgated, have failed. The
(predominantly White) township of Mandorah is essentially a 'beachhead' -- for
a larger invasive force. The Kenbi claim has taken a quarter of a century to process and still faces final ratification -- a formality at this stage -- but with Ruddock now in control, who knows? Large
areas of the CP are 'held' by Federal government agencies already and actual physical
Aboriginal occupation is miniscule, due to their being largely 'confined' to the
Belyuen Community. Permits are the only recourse Aboriginal people have, to prevent a 'traditional' disregard of their rights to culture and land, by non-Aboriginal people. "What's happened to democracy?" asks John Lively. Here's a song I wrote for 'Australia' Day 2001... |
|
...to the music of 'Advance Australia Fair' that might help answer John's query
on "democracy".
Mick Lambe 2001 |
More
on ‘Black Pastoralism'
| 05/06/2002 Dear All This is a reminder that there is a seminar on TUESDAY 11th JUNE 2002 at AIATSIS, details as follows: TUESDAY 11th JUNE, 2002 at 12.30pm to 2.00pm, Seminar Room, AIATSIS Lawson Crescent, Acton Peninsula, Canberra, ACT Details as follows: Speaker: Stuart Phillpott, Director, Special Projects, Land Enterprise Australia:
ABSTRACT Aboriginal peoples' involvement in the pastoral industry of the Northern Territory has been a feature of that industry almost since first contact between Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people. However, whilst Aboriginal involvement in the pastoral industry has been celebrated in terms of their bush skills and their qualities as stockmen, their association with the industry has always been ambivalent. For it was the pastoral industry that occupied and exploited their traditional land. Aboriginal peoples’ involvement in the pastoral industry was both exploitative and oppressive as they were always restricted to fulfilling a labour provision role. The development of Aboriginal people as owners and managers of pastoral cattle enterprises is relatively new, dating from the mid 1970s. This involvement has arisen in part through the policies directed at meeting Aboriginal peoples' land needs through various pastoral property acquisition policies, and in part through the privatisation of government and mission cattle projects. The policies that have supported Aboriginal involvement as owners and managers of pastoral properties have varied over time ranging from support for employment, meat self-sufficiency and commercial success, to an increasing focus on commercial success only. The increased emphasis of policy and program upon commercial success has had a number of outcomes. The number of properties receiving economic development support has been reduced, as has the actual number of operating beef cattle enterprises. In addition, herds on Aboriginal properties have been substantially reduced and there has been no real independent Aboriginal-owned and operated pastoral sector established. This has occurred because, to a large extent, policy has ignored the biogeographical, social and industry factors that constrained the development of an Aboriginal-owned and operated cattle industry. The primary factor for the failure of the policies to develop a commercially successful Aboriginal owned, operated and managed cattle industry in the Northern Territory is that the policies and the programs that supported them did not support Aboriginal people in their multiple land use aspirations, which in many cases included cattle production. |