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.