As anyone who has read my posts knows I believe in land rights and support the aboriginal culture.
However on a recent Q&A an issue was raised i.e. that of the declaration Wild rivers in Nth Qld.

The indigenous representative gave off a lot of heat but little substance as to her objections to the declaration.

If what Premier Bligh said was true of over 100 consultations with at least one of over 300 indigenous attendees spanning a number of years and that the misinformation about activities being spread makes one wonder what was the representatives real point?

It seems that her whole complaint was that her people (how many(?) want the right to exploit at *their* discretion. i.e. the govt must get *their* approval.

Given that their culture is based on hunter gatherer it would seem that conservation is in their cultural interests (preserving not destroying Status Quo ). Isn't this THE REASON WHY LAND RIGHTS WAS INSTITUTED, RESPECT FOR THAT CULTURE.
Bligh made it clear to me that the indigenous could run commercial activities. What was the point of the outburst.

I wonder if her cries aren't simply special pleading an *exclusive* grab for cash, a white-man's cultural power play or is there more to it? Their actions seem to be contrary to the above goals.

Given impending AGW and the Govt's responsibility to the good of everyone I wonder at if development of the land given it is contrary to the culture: shouldn't they be subject to the similar rules as everyone else.
What do you think.

Watch it examinator, you can get too close to the truth.
In this case I sit side by side with you.
The questions have to be answered, like you my form is very much as a supporter not detractor of Aboriginal rights.
But cash is behind an increasing amount of claims.
Well we must both prepare now for the insults and slanders that will come our way, truth sometimes costs.

who-so-ever gets the water...got the cash...so much better some multinational banker gets it [right?]

the question is really who will sell it on for the best price...because with control comes the right to sell it to who-ever

its just fine for farmers to steal most of australia
or for miners

but the uppity blacks/...what..they think they own this land?

come on..get real as the century changes..
that which might be..to that which can never be..it just wont be allowed to happen[and if it did...its only because they got a way to get the cheaper price

this is the age of international water cartels
tell her she's dreaming...or working on getting it for less...by those who seek control over all water

anyhow..the same moneyed elite..will yet get it..from whoever the middle man/..[or woman].. turns out to be

i seen it all before
fool me once shame on me
fool me twice shame on you...systemised abuse revealed and reviled

yeah i know its backwards...
but if the pres cant get it right why the heck should i

i know some international cartel will get it eventually

its just..going via the blacks that cleans the title...just like land rights..[cleans the title...then the lawyers sell it to the banks..[via a default of the land held as a loan/..security for the unpaid loan for a 4 wheel drive...[that broke down in the desert]..that saw the land get gobbled up by the mulitnationalist banker

I laughed at the kooris decrying the loss of possible development opportunities. There is a reason the whiteys havent developed far nth qld and the local blackfellers havent got a hope in hell of anything other than a vibrant tourist economy. Which the wild rivers scheme would support admirably.

Since when did the kooris want to be farmers and entrepreneurs anyway. Land rights was supposed to be about cultural integrity and not losing their heritage. Not becoming the newest breed of property developers and exploiters.

Despite what believers (and there are still plenty of them)
of the Noble Savage Myth would have you think
conservation is a modern concept in human social development.

Murri culture has always used a burn-it-out, consume the protein food
source and move on approach in the gulf and cape.

Modern notions of conservation are at odds with this Murri culture –
hence the fracture in the usually strong green/black alliance over
this issue.

There are still so many sad little power plays taking place – banning
the transport of grog in vehicles traversing a dry community-
that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved.

Come on you lot, it really is simple.

That awful woman has just decided that there are more green votes, than black, in locking up those rivers.

I can't believe anyone, no matter how simple, could believe any other thought ever entered her head.

Examinator, those 100 consultations with the indigenous people were NOT "consultations". They were meetings designed specifically to find the best ways implement decisions ALREADY MADE by the Queensland Govt.

There was NO "consultation".

Once again, the voice of indigenous people in Queensland was treated with contempt by those in power - - - - - this time under the "guise" of "so called" "consultation".

The Qld. governments historically, have shown scant respect for their indigenous population. The GOVERNMENT makes the decisions regarding indigenous people, and the indigenous people have close to ZERO say, except "sometimes" when they are needed for implementation of govt. policy (that will go ahead anyway whether or not the indigenous people approve). When they are not needed to assist with the implementation of govt. policy, THEY ARE IGNORED.

I agree with Master's comment.

examinator, what Tania Major said was that she and the people she represents were after consent not consultation. The idea being that after the consultation phase, a consensual outcome is arrived at after compromise or whatever. It appears that after the consultation phase in the Cape York case, the government just went off and did what it wanted and disregarded any view that didn't fit in with its own. That's pretty typical in my experience. Without being there, it's hard to know who's right and who's wrong. However, if the whole idea of development is based around the actions of individuals making the running on things via entrepreneurship, then consent or true agreement seems to make sense.

The other problem is that the people who tend to be the most affected are the little guy running a small enterprise and not the big miners who, when they get their foot in the door, do much more damage than the Aboriginals ever could. I didn't hear Bligh refuting that particular charge.

I agree with Master's comment.

examinator, what Tania Major said was that she and the people she represents were after consent not consultation. The idea being that after the consultation phase, a consensual outcome is arrived at after compromise or whatever. It appears that after the consultation phase in the Cape York case, the government just went off and did what it wanted and disregarded any view that didn't fit in with its own. That's pretty typical in my experience. Without being there, it's hard to know who's right and who's wrong. However, if the whole idea of development is based around the actions of individuals making the running on things via entrepreneurship, then consent or true agreement seems to make sense.

The other problem is that the people who tend to be the most affected are the little guy running a small enterprise and not the big miners who, when they get their foot in the door, do much more damage than the Aboriginals ever could. I didn't hear Bligh refuting that particular charge

Neither the noble savage myth or fire stick farming has anything to do with the issue. I do not give unqualified support to either notion. As a secular Humanist I support the indigenous people's CULTURE not necessarily all the practices.

I think Belly is on track.

The premise I offered was does support of land rights extend to their having unique DESTRUCTIVE rights.
or for them having privileged black version of whitey's excesses with total disregard for the environment and the rest of the country. With some getting rich while the bulk's health and welfare, life span etc. is third world levels. look at some of the Nth American Land.

(b) Conservation see my comment to are all religions wrong.

NB I am NOT a green as such just someone who logically knows that we can neither allow the appalling destitution and squalor that is often aboriginal camps or continue our profligate ways without shameful disastrous consequences.

It is the Govt responsibility to look after every one in the state even if that means questioning or forbidding whitey style developments.

Native advancement activities are NOT banned by wild rivers.

The ALP motives for the declaration are largely irrelevant the issue is about the Governments rights and the spirit of native title.

I can accept if all three parties agree on a project and if it meets environmental criteria and the indigenous gain advantage that lifts them out of the above mentioned squalor, good.

Given that the following.
a. That it took 3 years and we are speaking about a very few people.

b. There clearly have had time to to react etc.

c. The govt didn't discuss (ask) for the permission of wannabe millionaire land owners to cancel large portions of develop-able land for the good of all. They didn't get the same consideration It seems to me that to maintain the status quo by conserving land IS in their ambit by virtue of they won the majority at the ballot. No one else has unbridled control of their land or rivers.

Hasbeen,
Premier Bligh wasn't even remotely the issue.

thank you Master.
when Aborigines are needed
to ratify an equal rights republic
the rep from the cape york council
will be there.

The elders at a community are concerned. The doctors and nurses have been banging on about health care and the constant trips for specialist care in Cairns are becoming more frequent.

Fresh fruit and vegetables at the community-owned but whitey-run store are expensive.

The elders decide they need to operate their own market garden.

They apply for and receive a generous grant. A culturally sensitive whitey is employed to set up the project. He/she will also employ and train some of the local youth. Within three years the whitey can move on.

Its six months into the project. It’s a Friday night and there has been a lot of drinking. The locals employed on the project break into the now locked and fenced garden project. They take a number of items and smash the project to pieces.

There are no consequences. There is no accountability. The whitey is blamed for being too culturally insensitive and moves on. The elders blame a flawed consultation process.

The elders decide they need to operate their own fishing enterprise…….

Dear Examinator,

I've just come back from a few days holiday - a winter
getaway of pure indulgence in the Rutherglen area of
Victoria (fine wine, roaring fires, delicious food),
and carrying several bottles
of the opulent, decadent, rich and headily
aromatic paradox in a glass - their own fortified Muscat.
Delcious! As well as a recipe for the perfect dessert
for winter - a chocolate souffle.

But back to the subject of your thread -
I didn't see the Q and A segment you speak of - however,
in the past Tania Major - has always impressed me with
her logic - so I googled that particular Q and A evening.

Now, I'm for conservation - especially of our water supplies.
I've got in-laws who own vast property in the Quirindi
area of NSW - who are going through a battle with a
Coal Mining Company that if allowed to continue will
destroy their water supply.

Ms Major however claims that the environmental laws
restrict the capacity of indigenous communities on
the Cape to expend businesses and create much-needed jobs.

She points out that Chalco bauxite (Chinese owned aluminium
mine) proposed for Aurukun received exemption from the laws.

I think she raises a fair point - shouldn't the laws apply
to all? Why give exceptions to a mining company -
especially when we all know what mining companies do to
nearby water supplies.

Also, Tony Fitzgerald, QC - has spoken out and said that
"Access to Government can be bought in Queensland...
Mates were appointed to high-paying positions and
retired politicians were exploiting their political
connections for 'success fees.'"

Examinator - I think that there are many questions that
need to be asked in this matter. A Royal Commission
might well be the way to go - and both Tania Major and
Tony Fitzgerald, QC - are for a Royal Commission.
The only person who seems to be against a Royal
Commission is the Queensland Premier - I wonder why?

Foxy, i first drove a vehicle [a ute] on a farm in Rutherglen.
thanks for the memory.

The Observer it's a bit different.

For starters, the elders don't by tradition make decisions.
they oversee the decision-making process which is comprised of agreement between women's and men's councils.

elders only intervene when this breaks down.

In the transition from patriarchy to equal rights white fellas minimised gender difference with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, remarkably under the authority of a Constitution which provides for men's legislatures only.

As a consequence decisions made by agreement between women's and men's councils cannot attract Government funding because distinguishing between women and men is considered discriminatory.

So the elders govern and the lawlessness of tribalism breaks out because everyone except the elders is sidelined.

The solution is for white fellas to govern themselves by agreement between women's and men's legislatures overseen by governors-general of elders.

Foxy
I agree in my mind the Bauxite mine doesn't meet the criteria I set down and as such I DON'T SUPPORT IT
If only for the reasons you rightly state including conservation. Keep in mind 2 wrongs don't make a right.
It could be argued that this mine is on one river and there are multiple rivers at stake and the state has the responsibility to decide for the benefit of all the states occupants. While I have objections democracy such as it is rules.

In the program she became shrill making claims that when challenged she failed to offer supporting facts. But she seemed to be on about their right to effectively veto over conservation...I wondered why.

On examination there are indigenous activities providing jobs and according to my research no real legislative reason why others could be introduced.

It seems to me that the issue is cynically issuing misinformation to gain power for a privileged few by manipulating the race card. To a people who have been treated badly in the past.

Keep in mind that there is no dictum on high that says that all that activists do are necessarily always primarily in the interests of 'their' people. In truth most are simply politicians and the first dictum of politics is to gain power...the second to maintain the power.

It isn't until the 3rd dictum that the use there of is mentioned.
In the first two the only beneficiary is the holder.

In short just because she's indigenous doesn't mean her motives are always transparent or strictly in the interest of either the indigenous or Australians in general.

Yes examinator, the Wild Rivers legislation is a vexing issue from the point of view of Indigenous self-determination. I strongly support the legislation for environmental reasons, but I understand that there is strong opposition to it from some sections of the Indigenous communities on Cape York.

However, I'm unclear as to what their actual objections are, beyond the symbolic. I saw the Q&A episode last week, and I have to agree that it wasn't Tania Major's best performance - much bluster and sloganeering, but very little actual substance. Anna Bligh, on the other hand, seemed to have a reasonable answer to the few substantive objections that Ms Major articulated.

I'd like to hear what the real objections are, as opposed to politically driven slogans with apparently little to no basis in reality.

Dear whistler,

I'm glad that I stirred up that memory for you.
Discovering these old historic towns was a real
eye-opener. I could easily settle, in a rural
community - one day.
Just a country girl at heart, I guess.
(Grew up in Bathurst as a child).

Dear Examinator,

Thanks for clarifying a few points for me.
I'm getting a better grip on things.
I only wish that I would have seen that segment
of Q and A. And of course you're right -
people do have their own agendas. There's more
to all this than meets the eye.

Dear CJ,

Logical, as usual

examinator,

there is, of course, more to my story. The community council has employed a young accountant from Townsville to oversee the financial aspects of council business and ensure audit obligations are met.

There is still a substantial amount of money earmarked for the now dead on the ground project.

While the accountant can advise council she has no decision making role. As a matter of fact, if a council member suspected she was trying to influence decision making she would be immediately sacked.
Reluctantly but without question she pays out the monies from that account for 4WDs, electrical entertainment units, grog and travel.

A young school teacher suggests that all this dysfunction maybe related to land rights.
Why else would so many of the community members be living under a bridge in Mareeba?
Probably not – the community was granted land rights over two adjoining pastoral leases about ten years ago.

examinator in any group of people, at any time, at any place in the world, someone will be trying to manipulate someone else to get more of something. It really is that simple.

The statement "Since when did the kooris want to be farmers and entrepreneurs anyway. Land rights was supposed to be about cultural integrity and not losing their heritage. Not becoming the newest breed of property developers and exploiters." says it all. Part of the reason we set up land rights with special rights was to satisfy the needs of white man's dreaming. We needed to "preserve Aboriginal culture" so we could sit in comfort and believe that out there somewhere there was a better way of life. (A big part of it was also driven by people who believed what we were doing was best for Aborigines as well.)

In retrospect I think it would have been better if "Land Rights" had been set up as land grants with the same rights and responsibilities as those applying to non-aboriginal land owners. More Aborigines would have got to own some land and, in reality, they, both as individuals and communities would have had more control over their future.

Even if Major's performance wasn't so good, she's been backed up by Noel Pearson who's made the point that Aboriginals have been custodians of the land for a long time and the wild rivers are still pristine precisely because of that. The inferred question is that why should Aboriginal agricultural activities - the only development opportunity that is open to them? - be potentially stifled because of the threat posed to the Cape by the abstracted notion of development in general?

Pearson’s seems like a fair enough question/argument on the surface but as other posters have suggested, these advocates might just be being used as cover by the unscrupulous or uber-capitalist types who will grab the booty after all the hard legwork has been done in relaxing the legislation. Once that happens, government might well play the if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them game and the little guy ends up with even less than he started with. Actually, I think that’s a fair summary of what already happens everywhere, pretty much.

Dear RobP,

I'm leaning more towards your argument
that there's more to all this then meets
the eye. I personally wouldn't brush
Tania Major and her objections aside
so easily. She's always impressed me as
being a sincere advocate of her people -
and definitely not a 'user,' or an
opportunist out for herself. So what
if she didn't impress on a TV show -
this time around - big deal. I'd
sooner listen to her than a politician
any day of the week. Sorry, Examinator -
but I agree with RobP, there's more to
this than meets the eye - and Tania's
not alone - Fitzgerald, QC - is another
one backing her. Let's wait and see what
develops before we make judgements on this.
sooner or later the truth will out.

Whilst all these "well intentioned" and "sympathetic" people permit and encourage government to continue playing the race card all involved shall continue manipulatively playing the race card game whilst all resultant disadvantages continue to fester.

Eventually "Land Rights" shall be extinguished, then with all these land titles converted into conventional alienable land titles with same rights, same responsibilities, and same risks, as apply now to other land owners then the changes shall occur.

When land title is at risk, exists need to manage better, even if just to retain title, then individuals, corporate land trusts and communities will really exercise, and discover, far more control over their futures than can see today.

Until then accountability shall remain little more than a rhetorical slogan tossed out every know and then to obtain knee-jerk reactions...

.

CJ
My point exactly what is their objections in detail

All
Like CJ and I agree what are their objections exactly...details... all the information thus far doesn't add to the logic of a pile of possum poo.

I have no problems with the lady in question just that having had so much contact with pollies etc I have a very sensitive spin (bull) meter. When one side simply rants and resorts to emotionally based rabble rousing I get suspicious. Bugger the money show me the SUBSTANCE. So far there hasn't been any outside some vague "potential" stifling or potential opportunities (?) (what opportunities? where?).

As for maintaining Koories being a paramount conservation expertise resource. Rationally even that has a sunset clause if not the proverbial Diprotodon in the humpy... The Global warming thingy... circumstances and criteria are changing.

While I might be relatively happy to have the Koorie maintain status quo neither they or short focus gun ho developers really have a handle on the ramifications of the approaching climatic and potentially catestrophic changes. It's all new beyond any ancient ways. Hence I have real reservations with the concept of Coconut (brown on the outside but whitey on the inside) developers with limited appropriate knowledge having unconditional approval over government(presumably scientifically based conservation decisions) to develop.
One is largely benign and the other is fraught with demons we don't yet know

Hey Examinator,

A bit off subject here - so forgive me - but have
you read Houellebecq's thread on - "Middle-aged men
in cheap suits?"

Fractelle sure could use
any input from you dear heart (pretty please?).
I've tried to do my bit - but any additional
input from a kindred spirit would be a good
thing at this time. 'Cause they're ganging
up on her again and it's just not fair! Help?

“Fractelle sure could use
any input from you dear heart (pretty please?).
I've tried to do my bit - but any additional
input from a kindred spirit would be a good
thing at this time. 'Cause they're ganging
up on her again and it's just not fair! Help?”

Fractelle’s all good Foxy – she’s over there threatening to step people outside. Those boys over in the cheap suits wish she was a victim.

We might even have to hold her back before she does damage.

And what on earth crawled up Houels nether regions? You want me to go smash him?

Dear Piper,(Mama Bear),

No. Let's wait and see how Fraccy handles
herself first. I just got a bit concerned
because she's not as tough as she claims
to be. Is all.

As for Houelle - who knows?
I'm still hoping he'll come good.
Maybe it's a mid-life crisis?
Or maybe he's got no friends?

“No. Let's wait and see how Fraccy handles
herself first. I just got a bit concerned
because she's not as tough as she claims
to be. Is all.”

Must be in the tone, I see Fractelle as having dealt with demons past and ready to tear anyone apart that wont understand reason now. She’ll be right Foxy. Don’t let your concern keep her in a place where she is made less than she is.

(Gawd sorry Fractelle, I’m still talking about you in front of you)

“As for Houelle - who knows?
I'm still hoping he'll come good.
Maybe it's a mid-life crisis?
Or maybe he's got no friends?”

Could well be, I quite like his posts usually, right up until he went all silly at you. Seriously he might have just had a crappy day.

It isn’t really until I communicate with people like you that I come crashing down and realise how strange my own existence is hanging out with the little ones all the time.

I depend on grownups being adult and tough in all situations because if you aren’t I’m likely to have a wee breakdown myself.

Dear Piper,

Its interesting the effects we have on each other.
You, have a very positive effect on me - you make
me laugh, think about things - re-think about things,
and count my blessings each and every one.

Generaly speaking,between the general, tribal or personal intereststhe I always support the general interests, the country, the society, the future
The problem is that some people speak for country's interests for austranians interests and they mean corporation's interests, or their personal interests, that they speak for our future and they mean for their personal future or their family's future.
For me the most important is not what they say but what they do not say, what they hide and WHY?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

quote<<For me the most important is not what they say but what they do not say, what they hide and WHY?>>there are some things its better to not know

the general plan is to reduce the population by two thirds...this will be attempted by mass vacinating people with the cure to the beatup swine/bird human mutant flue vacine..[a compulsory vacination]

it has different batches to achieve certain results, the key is to make susseptable serfs..that serve the masters...or the equivenent of their ideal..the soviat man...party loyalist..who does as he is told...and believes their television..that puts them into their re programing mode via hdd tv...while feeding them,tomorrows duties

it seeks to divide families..create youth forces[along the line of hitler youth]..or the child solgers..who live in indoctrination/camps...and respect no old people..or their treasonous beliefs in freedom/rights etc

its funny this convo began with the question of have i gone to the darkside...as usual it asks the wrong question...the question is not if..but how..the how is..by mind reprograming via the media and peers

anyhow know its not us they hate...they really dispise our ignorance

examinator,

"Like CJ and I agree what are their objections exactly...details... all the information thus far doesn't add to the logic of a pile of possum poo."

True - no real information was supplied. But a valid question is, would it make any difference if they did supply any details. Why make yourself a target if it won't make any difference? Even if Major is effectively being used in someone else's power play or self-interest, doesn't the mere fact she and others are speaking up against the potential for unfettered mining on the Cape a good thing?

What if, for argument's sake, Aboriginals do not have a valid plan for development, but perhaps in 10 or 20 years they could. Isn't is still worthwhile making a public stand? If the miners rip into the Cape it could leave heavy metals in the rivers and pollute the water table, amongst other things thereby rendering the land useless to Aboriginals or anyone else.

No doubt, if the Government and miners decide they are going ahead anyway, they'll have their token EIS that won't mean a thing as every piece of geology is different and predicting how the water table will be affected is like predicting the weather in advance - impossible to do accurately.

Dear RobP,

Did you see the 60 minutes program on the fight
the farmers in Quirindi NSW are putting up against
the Chinese owned coal mining company? The Chinese have
acquired rights to mine in the rich farming area.

This NSW area has a resource of water which
is stored in aquafers below the surface and is
the source of water for the rich farming region.

Past evidence of mining around the world has extensively
contaminated rivers, lakes, and underground water supplies.
The Australian Government should take note of this world-wide
experience and withdraw any rights to mining in areas that
contain any source of water.

Allowing any mining in areas where any chance of contamination
of the water sources can occur should be banned in a
country such as Australia where water is a scarce commodity.

Tania Major was attempting to raise the issue that a
Chinese mining company had been given permission to
mine in the Cape - circumventing the current laws.
China already has a reputation of polluting rivers
within their own borders - how do we expect them to respect
water sources in other countries?

Foxy,

If the program you're referring to is about the Liverpool Plains, then I did see it on 4 Corners. More relevantly, some years ago I saw a program that showed the devastating effects of the Ok Tedi mine on the surrounding landscape in PNG.

It was a while ago now, but what I seem to remember was that the mine was built in the hills/ranges of PNG in a high-rainfall area. The first thing the rain did was wash the mud and heavy metals down the hills and into the rivers and basically kill the fish, silt up the rivers and who knows what else.

Cape York is also in a tropical zone with a wet season and is only separated from PNG by the Torres Strait. If mining on the Cape is to be done in hilly country, all the elements are there for a repeat of what happened at Ok Tedi.

Dear RobP,

Yes, it's the same program that I was referring to,
(my mistake about 60 minutes).
My in-laws own property in Quirindi - and are involved
in the battle with the mining company.

Foxy,
I saw the program and been to the Ok tedi area , albeit some years before the mine.
I remember being disgusted with Australia and the mine company's avoidance of their clear responsibility.
I also remember an Aussie gold miner polluting the the Danube or some such important river in Europe some years earlier.

People tell me we *need* the money and the world needs the resources. (given that 70% of the worlds gold it used to support a dubious concept (international reserves etc.) and 26% goes to 'decorate' the wealthy with less than 4% for industrial uses I wonder why we '' need” to dig the stuff up in the quantities we do. The same could be said for most mineral resources. Clearly we do this destruction in the name of our perverted sense of wealth aka power. But that is almost a different question.

RobP
It seems to me that both you are projecting on the basis you like the person in question and are defending her not answering my observational question.

The issue isn't about conservation per se rather it was (as presented in the public debate)
that the aboriginals should have the right to Veto a conservation initiative (to wit the wild rivers declaration). The Chinese mine exemption is in my mind WRONG! That doesn't give the koorie justification for them to develop of Govt veto. (two wrongs don't make a right.)

I pointed out that 'land rights' were acknowledgment of the koorie cultures. I see the 3rd world life circumstances as two separate issue.

Ms Majors may be right most of the time but this doesn't mean she or her people are the absolute authority on conservation issues. Especially given the context has changed. Nor does it mean that she (they) always have everyone's interests at heart.

I would add that conservation of what is left alone or stone-age technology will only take us part the way. We need all our 'sciences/knowledge' ( regen, intelligent planing, hydrology, biology etc.) to avoid disaster.

If this makes me a target so be it.

"The issue isn't about conservation per se rather it was (as presented in the public debate) that the aboriginals should have the right to Veto a conservation initiative (to wit the wild rivers declaration)."

Did Tania Major actually go as far as to explicitly say that or was she saying that she didn't want to see the little (Aboriginal) guy being excluded from developing an enterprise on the Cape? You may say that, effectively, there's little difference between the two. But isn't it the case that at the moment the Government is effectively throttling the budding Aboriginal farmer in the name of getting green votes? The other point is, what's the chance that the Government will eventually get into bed with the mining industry down the track anyway. If so, you can work it out - the net result is that the big boys win big at the expense of the little guys.

You're right, two wrongs don't make a right, but two wrongs can certainly neutralise one another. One could say it’s better then to have two wrongs than one wrong (which will keep on dominating unless and until some opposing opinion stops it).

CJ got it right when he said it was a vexed (read complicated) question. Best to stand back and let the situation naturally unravel.

Dear Examinator,

Sorry, but I've got to agree with RobP on this issue.
His last post summed things up beautifully.