Barbara McCarthy: speech on the McArthur River amendment

This is Barbara McCarthy’s  speech from the third reading of the McArthur River Amendment (sec 4AB Ratification of certain instruments)  when three MLA’s crossed the floor to vote against the bill in the Northern Territory Parliament on 3rd May 2007.

Interruptions from other members have been edited out.

Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I speak against this bill and put my voice on the record as to the reasons why I must speak against the bill. I have listened intently to the debate that has continued throughout the day and I commend the Attorney-General on his comments in this House about the Northern Territory Labor government and the fact that we are a broad church, the fact that we …

As I was getting to the legislation I put on the record that this is legislation to which I am opposed for personal reasons and what I see as legislation being pushed through on urgency, when for the Aboriginal people in the Borroloola region, the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Gudanji, there is Sorry Business going on right now. It is unfortunate that any kind of legislation has to be forced through at a time when families are grieving over a very important person who has fought for the rights of the Gulf region in this case against the diversion of the river.

I have stood in this House on two occasions, Madam Speaker, to express the deep sincerity of the people of the Gulf region regarding the importance of the river. This legislation is being rushed through on urgency without having first buried a very important man, my brother, who has stood in the Supreme Court to argue for the rights of indigenous people in this country. I have explained and expressed this quite well with my colleagues, who I know have fought difficult situations regarding this particular project in the Gulf region …

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In regards to this legislation, I must speak against it. I certainly feel that, on behalf of the people of the Gulf region, and in particular indigenous people right across the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia, that to pass this legislation on urgency, in the middle of Sorry Business is the lowest sign of respect for those people and families. I still encourage my colleagues in government to negotiate with the traditional owners on a level of equality and equity. I sincerely put to the House that I vote against this bill. I thank members for allowing me this opportunity.

Xstrata daming more rivers, this time in Chile

SWISS FIRM PROPOSING AYSEN DAM IN CHILE HAS QUESTIONABLE HISTORY

Xstrata’s Track Record In Australia Shows Scant Concern For Environmental Issues

(May 24, 2007) Xstrata, criticized heavily by a growing number of Chileans opposing the Swiss mining company’s plan to build a large hydroelectric dam in northern Patagonia (Region XI), is no stranger to controversy – especially when it comes to rivers.

In recent months the mining company has struggled to gain Chilean government approval for its plan to dam the Cuervo River. Hoping to begin construction on a proposed 600 MW dam sometime next year, Xstrata submitted its requisite Environmental Impact Study (EIS) this past January (ST, Jan. 5). The EIS did not impress Chile’s National Environmental Committee (CONAMA), which refused to even consider the “insufficient” report (ST, March 22-23). CONAMA did, however, invite the company to submit a second EIS, something Xstrata promises to do.
Local activists and environmentalists, meanwhile, want to send the Swiss mining company packing. Not only would Xstrata’s proposed dam be environmentally hazardous to the pristine wilderness area, but – given a barrage of seismic activity that’s affected the zone in recent months – it would also be just plain dangerous, say opponents.
“To do that, to build (the dam) right now would be a time bomb,” Hipolito Medina of the environmental group Ecosistemas recently told the Patagonia Times. “You don’t need to be an engineer, a geologist, a sorcerer or anything to realize that (the Xstrata plan) is a real danger.”
But criticism against the company is not limited to southern Chile. On the opposite side of the world – in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT) – Xstrata currently finds itself at the center of a different, yet somewhat similar, controversy.
Roughly 80 kilometers south of a town called Borroloola, along the McArthur River, Xstrata owns and operates one of the world’s largest zinc mines. Its McArthur River Mine opened in 1993 and, until last year, was an underground facility. In March 2006, however, the company applied for permission to expand operations into open pit-style mining. A new open-pit facility, said Xstrata, would extend the mine’s production life.
The proposed expansion, however, has attracted stiff opposition because the site for the open pit mine is already occupied – by the McArthur River itself. The company’s solution? Just move the river!
Australian authorities last year granted Xstrata permission to do just that. In fact, construction on the expansion project has already begun.
Opponents of the project, however, refuse to back down. They say the project will be environmentally devastating. The planned river diversion will directly affect downstream ecosystems. Pollution from the zinc and lead mine, furthermore, is likely to seep into the river. Worse, the McArthur floods almost yearly.
Also fighting the project are the region’s Traditional Owners: indigenous residents who have property claims to the area in question. In an effort to block the proposed expansion, a group of Traditional Owners took the case to Australia’s Supreme Court. Last month the Court ruled in their favor, declaring that NT’s approval process was flawed. Sadly, one of the leaders of the Owners group, a 43-year-old man named Mr. Timothy, died just two weeks before the ruling.
The NT government, however, reacted quickly, hammering through emergency legislation that – despite the objections of several indigenous lawmakers – overturned the Supreme Court ruling. The vote took place two days before Timothy’s funeral.
“It was the lowest form of disrespect against indigenous people in this country,” said NT lawmaker Barbara McCarthy, sister of the recently deceased mine opposition leader. “The first thing that people felt was a great sense of hurt, a great sense of injustice, insult, and felt that even before this man had been buried, they’d been kicked again.”
Santiago Times,  Benjamin Witte (benwitte@santiagotimes.cl)

McArthur River anger prompts parliamentary dissent

HOW long can Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin tolerate dissent within her ranks?
During the past few weeks, tensions within the Martin Labor Government have been on public display following concerns about several issues relating to Aborigines. And when one cabinet minister declares: “I’m spent”, surely something has to give.

Earlier this month, three Aboriginal Labor MPs crossed the floor over legislation relating to the McArthur River Mine.

The legislation was designed to overturn an earlier Supreme Court ruling against the approval process for the expansion of the mine, near Borroloola. But with a funeral the following day for a senior Aboriginal man in Borroloola, the three MPs crossed the floor in protest.

Another Aboriginal MP, Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour, missed the vote completely. Until this week, the Government maintained the obvious fiction that her absence was simply the result of other commitments. In fact, as Scrymgour told ABC radio on Wednesday, the only reason she didn’t vote against the legislation was that it would have left her out of a job.

“As a government minister, if I had crossed the floor against a government bill I would’ve had no option but to have resigned,” she said.

“I made a decision that I would not vote … I did stick to my principles and that is why I chose not to vote.”

Does the distinction matter? Crossing the floor and missing a vote are, of course, completely different concepts.

But for the average observer, Scrymgour’s position is clear: she didn’t cross the floor but she certainly didn’t support her Government’s legislation. Still, Scrymgour backed the Chief Minister and the Government this week. But she also admitted she had spent the past few weeks soul-searching, adding that she was spent.

“You get to a point in your working career, in your life, you work hard to get where you are, there are certain threshold issues that you get to that cause you to confront who you are and what you are,” she said.

“I don’t walk out of Parliament House, or anywhere else, and go home and wash my skin and the Aboriginality disappears. That stays with me 24/7.”

Also weighing on Scrymgour was the issue of 99-year leases, the scheme promoted by the Howard Government to boost home ownership and economic development in remote communities. The first community to agree to the long-term leases is Nguiu, on the Tiwi Islands.

But Scrymgour, a Tiwi Islander, has deep concerns. Last week, during a visit to Nguiu by federal Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough, she said it “has divided our people like no other issue”. Brough pointed out that 99-year leases were first raised by the Chief Minister, but Scrymgour has not backed down.

This week, the traditional owners of Nguiu circulated a document detailing why the deal was a good idea.

Scrymgour wrote a detailed rebuttal in response, saying many of the points raised were misleading and “plain wrong”.

All these issues must be of concern to Martin, who has already come under fire from within her ranks over her handling of indigenous affairs.

In the next few weeks, a report she commissioned into violence and abuse in Aboriginal communities will finally be made public after several delays. Her response may set the tone for the rest of the year.

The Australian A house divided by land issues, Ashleigh Wilson, May 26, 2007

She’s only human, thank the Great Spirit

Check out this article by Duffy writes

Thank you Marion, Barbara, Alison and Karl for the reality check. If our system of government – particularly one that operates in Aboriginal country and relies on Aboriginal voters for its success – is to be truly inclusive, then we have to develop a new realpolitik that truly recognises and acts on the imperatives of other cultures.
If we can’t do it, we don’t belong in the 21 st century and we certainly don’t deserve to govern.

full article here…

Back from Borroloola

Hello. It has been a hectic few weeks. I have just returned from Borroloola having gone there for the funeral and stayed a few days to talk to the Traditional Owners and have a look around.

I will post some new photo’s and information soon – but in the meantime I was heartened to see that there was heightened interest in McArthur River. So today, instead of my thoughts, or news extract I have collected some blog links talking about recent events.

Matjjin-nehen

I missed this when it came out last night, but Clare Martin’s legislation, which prevents traditional owners from launching legal action to stop Xstrata from diverting the river and basically digging the world’s largest zinc and lead mine on their land, was passed by the Northern Territory parliament, 17 votes to 5.

 Wooly Days

Northern Territory Chief Minister Claire Martin has seriously upset her three indigenous caucus members after passing controversial retrospective legislation Thursday to allow expansion of a McArthur River zinc mine. …

Whenua, Fenua, Enua, Vanua

About 800 people turned out in Borroloola, in the Northern Territory, yesterday for the funeral of one of the traditional owners who led the fight against the expansion of the McArthur River Mine. The 43-year-old was the brother of …

The Eagles Nest

Barbara McCarthy’s brother was buried in Borroloola yesterday – a significant man and a significant fighter against the destruction of the McArthur River. The sorry business continues. This is the reason that three Aboriginal Labor …

Duffy writesBarbara McCarthy, in a passionate speech, told the House that it was shameful the legislation was rushed through while the people of Borroloola were still in ‘Sorry Business’ (extensive mortuary rites following a death, still widely …