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.