[recoznet2] Native title proof burden too great: Aborigines
What a novel idea! Have the government prove that Aboriginal peoples didn't own the land before it was stolen! Of course, it will never fly - it's not weighted in favour of the beneficiaries of the theft. Trudy ^^ ABC News Fri, 20 Aug 1999 9:50 AEST Native title proof burden too great: Aborigines Indigenous Australians say they are tired of having to prove their traditional ownership of land. It has taken five years for the Injinoo community at the tip of Cape York to prove their traditional ownership. The State Government yesterday handed back 340,000 hectares to local tribes in the largest freehold grant to Aboriginal people in the state's history. Speaking at the handover ceremony, John Abednego from the Torres Strait Regional Authority said governments should reverse the way they think about native title. "I'm asking the State and the Federal governments to change the scenario to prove to us that we haven't got traditional ties to the communities," he said. "We should have more of a 'short-cut' in the process in this particular issue." © 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
[recoznet2] DICWC: Casuarina Prison clams another life
media release DEATHS IN CUSTODY WATCH COMMITTEE (WA) Inc. 119 MATHIESON RD ASCOT WA 6104 Tel:61 (0)8 9277-1533 Fax:61 (0)8 9478-4204 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.omen.net.au/~dicwc Thursday, 19 August 1999 Casuarina Prison claims another life. The Deaths In Custody Watch Committee was today deeply saddened by the news of a young Aboriginal man's death in Casuarina Prison. "We are saddened by this news but not surprised." Said Kath Mallott, Executive Officer of the Watch Committee. "The majority of inmates at Casuarina Prison have been subjected to a 23 hour lock-down since Christmas Day and the Ministry of Justice has ignored warnings about the detrimental effect that this is having on prisoners' physical and psychological well- being." "The majority of prisoners had no involvement in the riot, but since Christmas Day, they have been punished in the most draconian fashion imaginable." Said Ms Mallott. "To be confined to a small space for such a long period of time and to be forced to exercise in a narrow corridor inside the prison is bound to have a horrendous effect on a prisoner's ability to cope with depression." "The Ministry Of Justice and Attorney General Foss have repeatedly stated that they make no apology for the horrific regime imposed but it was mismanagement at the highest levels that caused the prison overcrowding which was the major contributing factor to the riot." "Casuarina Prison was originally designed to accommodate approx 360 prisoners but since Christmas Day the figure has exploded to approx 700 per day." "The Watch Committee calls upon the Ministry of Justice to return Casuarina prisoners to a normal regime and we call on the Minister to immediately introduce legislation to reduce the shameful incarceration rates in Western Australia." Media Contact: Kath Mallott: work 08 92771533 or mobile 0419930375 To monitor and work to ensure the effective implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody Deaths In Custody Watch Committee (WA) Inc) 119 Mathieson Road, REDCLIFFE, Western Australia, 6104 "The beginning of the cause of deaths in custody does not occur within the confines of police and prison cells or in the minds of the victims. Initially it starts in the minds of those who allow it to happen." Elder Dr. Jack Davis (OA, MBE) * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.omen.net.au/~dicwc * --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
[recoznet2] GAC update 11 (20 August 1999)
Hi folks, the purpose of this update is to provide information on developments since the World Heritage Committee meeting of July 12; in particular: 1) ERA's 1998/1999 financial year full-year summary 2) The text of the final World Heritage Committee decision (for those who haven't seen it from other sources) 3) The text of an ABC broadcast featuring Bob Collins. (In the original interview Collins was followed by Karen Oxnam - Director, Jabiluka uranium mine - and segments of the interview with her follow). Where all this comes together is in (a) the increasing level of admission by ERA that the Jabiluka project depends on permission from the Mirrar to use the Ranger processing mill; and (b) widening acceptance among 'significant others' in the Kakadu region that this is not going to be the case. 1) ERA'S 1998-1999 FINANCIAL YEAR FULL-YEAR SUMMARY ERA's summary, released as a media release and stock-exchange announcement, notes the following (all points reproduced, just in case we should be accused of attempting to attempting to skew the news our way) (though comments are adde on occasion): * Earnings before interest and tax decreased by 6% to $45.8m * Profit after tax decreased by 18% to $21.9m (just as a matter of context: as a proportion of North Ltd's overall income, ERA dropped from 18% in the 1996-97 annual report to 9% in that of 1997-8. That represents a more than 50% drop in income for that year. While we might have preferred a similar drop this year, it was not to be. But 6% is bringing the drop up to around the 60% mark.) * An 11.0 cent fully-franked final dividend declared, maintaining a total dividend of 14.0 cents * Sales revenue decreased by 14% * Sales of Ranger material - 4006 tonnes. (This is a decrease from 4635t in 1998) * Four new sales contracts signed * Ranger production is up, to 4380t (from 4162t in 1998) (But it is being dropped to 4000 from 1.1.99) * Mining of Ranger #3 ahead of schedule * "The first stage of the Jabiluka mine was developed under budget and ahead of schedule". The drop in sales is due to "...several existing customers exercizing their option to reduce their sales for the year". (p2). Wouldn't it be nice to know which ones and why? The four new sales contracts apparently mean that "...contracts (are) now in place for over 25 000 tonnes of production in the next ten years." What? Contracts for only 2 500 tonnes per year, when they're at looking at producing 4000 tonnes a year from Ranger AND wanting to phase Jabiluka in in 18 months? Surely North shareholders need to point out yet again that the future simply is simply not in the Jabiluka mine, especially since uranium prices have actually dropped since last year (from US$11.23 per pound last year to $10.07 this year). The above is kind of academic. The Sydney Morning Herald (20.8.99, 24) says "Stockbroking analysts say Jabiluka would be uneconomic if ERA was forced to construct a stand-alone plant, given present low uranium prices." Which, of course, it will be. Curiously, in view of the agreement ERA is supposed to have made at the World Heritage meeting, no mention is made of the 18-month break. The closest it gets is: "A six week core sampling process will be completed in August 1999 after which the development will enter a six to twelve month design phase encompassing additional mine planning and further environmental, safety and cultural studies." Apparently, ERA's share price rose by 7 cents to $1.90 because of this announcement. This rise takes it to about 20 cents less per share than it was when the price allegedly 'exploded' to about $2.10 immediately after the World Heritage decision. Seems the share-buying public isn't convinced. After all, neither price compares well with the $4.60 ERA shares worth up to the early part of last year. Finally, "(o)n 12 July 1999 the World Heritage Committee, by a majority of 20 to one, confirmed that the Jabiluka Project would not cause Kakadu's world heritage status to be placed in danger." Below is the full text of the decision. If you can find anything in there to suggest the Committee confirms any such thing, please let us know. While this is certainly the line the government and ERA have touted in the press, the reality is somewhat different. *** 2) DECISION OF THE THIRD EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, 12 JULY 1999 Kakadu National Park (Australia) 1. The Committee, (a) Emphasizes the importance of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In particular the Committee emphasizes Article 6 (1) which states that: Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage (...) is situated, and without prejudice to property right
[recoznet2] Public Meeting
Public Meeting Ten Years on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody A public meeting to discuss issues surrounding Aboriginal Deaths in Custody from the perspective of changes in the last ten years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Speakers: Letty Scott (or Letty's husband if she is not back from Europe where she is still pursuing her case) Letty's husband was hung twice at Berrimah Gaol, Darwin. Phil Khan Brother of a woman who was shot in the back by Victorian Police Carl Hughes Forensic expert involved in many Deaths in Custody matters Ray Jackson Long term activist in Deaths in Custody Matters. Tom Mann Theatre 116 Chalmers Street SURRY HILLS Wednesday 25 August 1999 Meeting starts at 6.00 p.m. sharp. Light refreshments provided. A chance for people to ask what happened, what is happening, what can we do. Enquiries phone 02 9698 1985 or 02 9318 0947 Don ClarkPresidentIndigenous Social Justice AssociationPO Box K555[EMAIL PROTECTED]HAYMARKET NSW 1240 BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Clark;Don FN:Don Clark ORG:Indigenous Social Justice Association Inc TITLE:President TEL;WORK;VOICE:02 9698 1985 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;PO Box K555=0D=0A;HAYMARKET;NSW;1240 LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:PO Box K555=0D=0A=0D=0AHAYMARKET, NSW 1240 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] EMAIL;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:19990820T131542Z END:VCARD
Re: [recoznet2] Re: The Australian: Aborigines urged to end partisan ways
"Meddlesome priest" is what occurred to me also after I calmed down from my disgust and anger. Who was it that said, 'Lord protect me from my friends, I can take care of my enemies' or something like that? Trudy Laurie Forde wrote: I think this is a case of carrying the 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's " bit a tad too far ; after all, Caesar did not claim that the lands he invaded were "Terra Nullius". This is more like "Give to Hitler what is Hitler's" in regard to the invasion of Poland, for example. No---"Give to Howard what is Howard's " does not ring the right bell for me. "Meddlesome Priest" does. Laurie Laurie and Desley Forde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trudy Bray wrote Original Message- From: Trudy Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: news-clip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 10:58 AM Subject: The Australian: Aborigines urged to end partisan ways Aborigines urged to end partisan ways By political editor DENNIS SHANAHAN 18aug99 ABORIGINAL leaders should recognise the legitimacy of the Howard Government and change the strategy of close alliance to the Labor Party if there is to be any chance of reconciliation, according to indigenous rights activist Frank Brennan. The Jesuit priest, a key influence in Aboriginal rights and the Wik debate, has warned indigenous leaders that they are seen to be too close to the ALP and too "party political". Although the outspoken campaigner said the Coalition Government must be more inclusive, and has major shortcomings, the indigenous leadership must be "able to accept the legitimacy of the government of the day". "Reconciliation will not be advanced by ongoing political allocation of blame to the Howard Government accompanied by silence about the actions of State Labor governments," he said in an article in the University of NSW Law Journal. Father Brennan's remarks will sharpen the debate within the circle of Labor, Aboriginal leaders and the Government over native title and constitutional reform. The election of the Australian Democrats' Aden Ridgeway, Australia's second Aboriginal senator, and his success in dealing with John Howard on the constitutional preamble, has divided opinion on Aboriginal strategy. Indigenous groups welcomed yesterday the UN confirmation of the decision of the international committee on the elimination of racial discrimination to continue to monitor the native title laws. ATSIC chairman Gatjil Djerrkura said the Government should "now enter meaningful negotiations with indigenous leaders on the future of its native title legislation". Father Brennan said there could be no prospect of greater reconciliation unless government was more inclusive in decision-making. * This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/ --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
[recoznet2] Some food for thought
Australian Financial Review August 21, 1999 The king is dead; long live the king Capital Idea, By Brian Toohey The full horror of what Australians are being asked to approve at November's republican referendum can only be appreciated by reference to the text of the proposed alteration to the Constitution. According to the new section 63, the President will be able to appoint as many deputies as he or she likes. And what presidential powers will be exercised by the deputies? The answer, as is the case with so much of the proposed new constitution, is anything the President "thinks fit". Perhaps one deputy could be kitted out in a fetching new uniform as commander-in-chief of the armed forces under the proposed section 68. Alternatively, a deputy may simply be required to live full time at Admiralty House on the Sydney Harbour foreshore and serve in a more diverting capacity "during the pleasure of the President", as the ,Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 bill so quaintly puts it in section 63. Those who find the prospect of a puffed-up president is bad enough, without half a dozen deputies swanning about the place, can probably relax. The existing Constitution already gives the Governor-General the power to appoint deputies and none has been appointed. And any republican deputies will only be allowed to raid the presidential cellar "until the Parliament otherwise provides". In the reassuring interpretation of the referendum bill, all that is really happening is that the existing constitutional powers granted to the Governor-General are being transferred to the President. Admittedly, some powers are being reinforced and others qualified, but the comforting message is that the detail doesn't matter - the referendum is merely about replacing the Queen with an Australian head of State. Yet those who notice the detail could be excused for concluding that the essential thrust of the referendum bill is to maintain a monarchical constitutional structure which was already outdated in the 19th century, let alone appropriate for the 21st century. Under the Constitution, the monarch/Governor-General sits over the top of the Parliament and the Cabinet. Despite its republican title, the constitutional amendment bill retains much of this monarchical structure. Section 58, for example, gives the President the right to withhold assent to a bill which has passed both houses of Parliament. The President also has a right to recommend amendments. This right is in the Constitution and has never been exercised. But why leave the option there? Why not state bluntly that a bill shall become law in a 21st century democracy once it has passed Parliament? One reason for not doing so is that voters may like the idea of a presidential veto over bills which a government has pushed through against strong public opposition. Or perhaps voters want presidents to reject bills, say on euthanasia or the legalisation of marijuana, which they find morally repugnant. Although this is presumably not the intention of the framers of the amendments, the language is sufficiently ambiguous to encourage a president who wanted to exercise a veto in line with sentiments expressed on tabloid radio. According to the new section 58, the President's discretion will be subject to the Constitution. And a new section 59, in the chapter on the executive government, says the President shall act on the advice of ministers. But it is not clear if this includes advice to assent to bills because the veto power under section 58 relates to the section dealing with presidential powers in regard to Parliament. A similar problem arises at the start of the proposed constitutional amendments. The meaning seems plain enough - "the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the President..." In line with the existing Constitution, the President will be advised by a Federal Executive Council comprising ministers "chosen and summoned by the President" and holding office "during the pleasure of the President" . If executive power is vested in presidents who can hire and fire ministers at their pleasure, this would not seem to leave a lot of room for Cabinet government. The new Constitution tries to get around this problem by inserting a sentence, the first half of which says that the President "shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State". However, the second half of this sentence undoes much of the first half by stating that the President "may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power". At the very least, this immediately introduces an exception to the statement that the President "shall act" on the advice of ministers. Although no-one really knows what is encompassed by the unwritten reserve powers, they now seem to include the power to sack a
