email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
There are three schools of thought regarding the gas processing hub to be built at James Price Point, north of Broome:
- Ensure that traditional landholders get compensation for use of the land,
- Hurry it along so that business can proceed,
- Protect the environment by stopping the project.
The newspaper often fails to clearly distinguish these three views. The first two are all about money and who gets it. The third is barely given a mention.
If the project is to go ahead...
If the project is to go ahead then it should go ahead -- quickly. Barnett is right to initiate compulsory land acquisition.
The big picture is, that traditional landholders are happy to sell their traditional land rights; the only question is, For how much. Big business has the traditional big sticks of money in the bank and politicians in the pocket. Traditional landholders have the more modern big stick of the legal right to delay business for as long as the landholders wish.
James Price Point has introduced a new variable: squabbling amongst various groups who each claim to be the real, traditional landholders. Why would they bother? Well...
Being a traditional landholder gives you the right to collect a fist-full of money. So it's important to be the traditional landholder. The traditional landholder gets money. The rest get nothing. This is not internal family fighting, nor inter-tribal feuding. This is a serious fight for serious cash rewards.
While the fight continues, there are actual rewards to the people who represent -- or manage -- the various participants. The people who are seen to be negotiating gain rewards of power or reputation or money. It's in their interests for the "negotiations" to continue.
Meanwhile, the people who will ultimately be declared to be the traditional landholders are getting nothing. They may get a further nothing once the settlement is reached. But they certainly get nothing while the fighting continues.
In summary: The first two schools of thought are fighting for money. Who gets it, how much, how soon. From these points of view, Barnett is absolutely right to attempt to stop the squabbling. Stop making money for professional "representatives" and start making money for business and, perhaps, for traditional ex-landholders.
What was that third point again?
Did I mention that there is a third school of thought?Some people are said to not want the hub to be built at all...
Who are these people?! Are they environmental nutters who mistakenly believe that some things are more important than money? Are they self-centred tourist operators who believe that their current eco-tourist ventures are more important than making really big bucks by bulldozing the environment? Are they tourist town managers who don't want flouro vests and steel-capped boots trampling down their country town ambiance?
Anyway, it's far too late for that last...
I have two lasting memories of Broome:
- A peaceful country town with beautiful beaches, beautiful weather and a relaxed lifestyle. That memory is from about 1972.
- A crowded town packed with traffic, drunks in the park and litter in the streets and at the beaches. That memory is from 2008.
Broome has dedicated itself to growth and money. Yes, you can have a great holiday there -- if you pay for a nice resort and avoid the crowds and fights. Well, I doubt that you will be able to avoid the crowds... In 2008 I drove into Broome. Weaved through the traffic and pedestrians. Parked at the end of a row of shops.
The shops were a mix of find-it-anywhere cafes, supermarkets, chemist shops. Interspersed with tourist traps selling cheap and nasty souvenirs with pictures of -- sometimes -- Broome. With the identifying imprint, Made in China. The carpark doubled as a rubbish tip.
A few hundred people in flouro vests and steel-capped boots will only emphasise the nature of the town. It's a town for growth, for trapping tourists and for making as much money as possible.
What was that third point again?
In The West Australian of 3 Sep 10 there's a pretty little photo of a whale flicking its tail. Off James Price Point, according to the caption. The rest of the page is dedicated to the battle between business -- wanting money, traditional landholders -- wanting money, tourism operators -- wanting money, and traditional landholders -- wanting money.Environmental protection is hardly worth mentioning.
The plant will go ahead. That part of the environment will be destroyed. Broome will continue its down-hill slide to growth.
Barnett is doing the right thing: getting it sorted out as quickly as possible.
All that's happening is that people are fighting over money. Who gets it and how much.
The environment is stuffed anyway.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
2 comments:
The Big Picture, as you put it, in the Kimberley Gas Hub issue does not start with the Traditional Owners wanting/or being prepared to sell their rights to land. The Goolarabooloo traditional owners, including law boss Joseph Roe will fight this project to the very end. Joseph has the Law and Culture responsibility for that country (a living culture), and has no financial agenda whatsoever. A living Song-cycle runs between Bidyadanga and One Arm Point, on the Dampier Peninsula, which ('like a spade through a snake') will be dissected by this planned exclusion zone.
Further, Joseph has had a Native Title Claim in the system waiting for 16 years. This claim was presented concurrent to the claim for the Broome township area, which was granted some years ago, secured in no small part by the cultural testimony presented by the Goolarabooloo claimants among others.
It is high time we as educated (and therefore responsible) Australians saw through this media white-wash and sought to weld ourselves to the moral imperative of protecting a living culture. The refusal of Premier Barnett to shift the proposed location of his ‘Gas Hub’ to the non-controversial and ‘already damaged’ Barrup Peninsula to the south, is testimony of his agenda to service the Kimberley with a ready fossil fuel for further industry.
Revenue for the state of Western Australia from gas processing is not in jeopardy from a change in location. Joseph Roe (on Four Corners ‘Rush to Riches’) explained he had no problems with the refinery, so long as it was located in an appropriate place.
Andy Reid Northcote 3070
Thank you for the feedback.
I found a YouTube video of Joseph Roe speaking. He gives the impression of a man who cares for his culture rather than for the money. The West Australian newspaper today (6 Sep 10) provides a prominent photo with weak supporting text on John Watson, a "prominent elder" who seems to have similar -- non-financial -- views.
Good luck to them. They are fighting against a tide of money-driven protests and publicity, from both Aboriginal and industrial groups.
You're right, the media has little time for people who do not want the gas hub. The people that we do see -- both Aboriginal and industrial -- always have their hands out for more money. The premier -- and the state in general -- prefer money now to environment (or culture) in the future. So the environment (and culture) are stuffed.
So what do we do? What can we do? What will we do?
And we'd better be very quick to do it.
Post a Comment