Outdated laws need to change

1 Comment on "Outdated laws need to change"

1. Geoffrey Preece | September 1, 2023 at 7:52 pm |

   Letter with comments from me.

   Lisa Bellamy (LB) – Currently in NSW we have legislation that says if Crown Land is unused or not required for use it can be given to an Aboriginal Land Council.

   Geoffrey Preece (GP) comment – Aboriginal People, through the Land Council, a non profit community organisation can claim land, that’s true. It is the result of decades and decades of land rights campaigning for dispossessed Indigenous people. Something that Lisa Bellamy, a white woman who has Aboriginal friends, seems to want to destroy.

   LB – Currently in NSW we have a law that allows an Aboriginal Land Council to crush and destroy vital bushland, native habitat and endangered wildlife in the name of self-determination.

   GP comment – Actually we have laws that say a private landholder can apply to the government for rezoning and development and when successful they might ‘crush and destroy vital bushland’. They also provide resources for humans to live their lives. Sure, there is a special provision for Land Councils that is trying to enhance the opportunities for economic development of Aboriginal people, but there are also a whole bunch of complex steps involved in getting approval.
   And yes, there will be destruction of bushland if you need to clear land for housing or any part of the built environment. Just like the last 235 years of non indigenous development, except the local Land Council is planning to develop only 10% of their land holdings They own about 2% of the Central Coast. The rest is to be preserved. This is the lowest figure I’ve ever heard in the realm of developers. And the proposed land developments make up about one fifth of one percent of the Central Coast. The Aboriginal Population of the Central Coast is about 5%.

   LB – Currently in NSW we have a law that says Local Aboriginal Land Councils can be run by non-local Aborigines who can ignore the voice of local Traditional Owners.

   GP comment – One of the points about Land Councils was the recognition that Aboriginal people have been dispossessed and dispersed and that it would be wrong, in a social justice sense, to just cater for people that can establish a 1788 connection to land and only get some recompense in the land they were associated with in 1788.

   Another point is that a number of the key local ‘Aborigines’ (the use of this word to describe them is considered offensive by many Aboriginal people) are supporters and financial beneficiaries of the Wallarah 2 Coal Project, a far more environmentally damaging operation than housing projects. How does that fit in with Lisa’s view of ‘caring for country’, and the elevated position that is given to these ‘locals’.

   I presume Lisa Bellamy is mostly referring to the Traditional Owner claimants on the Central Coast. A number of these claimants have only surfaced in the last 20 or so years after ‘late in life’ awareness, or what they believe is confirmation, of Aboriginality. They, upon this late arrival, have set out to claim the entire Central Coast up to Maitland, and down to Hornsby.

   Maybe some or all those involved in the claim are genuine, but in the words of Cameron Manning, a Gomeroi man living on Dharug Country in Western Sydney – “Whilst I believe it is a good thing that more and more people are embracing their Indigenous heritage, there are several issues which arise from this. Some of these recently identifying people genuinely have indigenous heritage and they will respectfully trace their ancestry and family connections without attempting to assert themselves as an Elder, leader or spokesperson for the Indigenous community. Whilst other people who are recently identifying as Indigenous have quite different motivations for their claims”.

   LB – Currently in NSW we have a law that says only Aboriginal Land Councils and those with Native Title can be regarded, spoken to and listened to by our politicians.

   GP comment – What law says that? Politicians may choose not to engage, but they are not inhibited by any law that I know of. The people may not get what they want, but that’s not the same thing.

   LB – If you are a traditional owner with ties to the land, but don’t have the white man’s piece of paper you have no voice.

   GP comment – I presume Lisa Bellamy means that because they failed in their native title application so far they don’t have a voice. Again they can make representations to politicians like anybody else. Problems with Native Title applications have very little to do with the Land Rights Act 1983.

   LB – Ask our NSW Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty, David Harris; he will confirm this.
   Currently in NSW we have a law that says if you want to bulldoze native habitat of endangered species, if you want to kill even more of our endangered species then that’s OK as long as you transfer the biodiversity credits to another bit of bushland.

   GP comment – We have native vegetation clearing laws that are pretty ineffective. About 95,000 hectares have been cleared in NSW every year for the past 4 years. I agree there are problems with implementation of Biodiversity credits, and they may never work, that is not the fault of Land Councils.

   LB – (While housing may be) a priority over the natural environment, if we wipe out all our trees, housing will be irrelevant.

   GP – “wipe out all trees” – exaggeration extremis – The Central Coast of NSW is close to the most balanced of Urban development vs Nature protection there is around Australia. More than 50% is in protected reserves of some sort. Some is in State Forests of which some is logged on a rotational basis, and ideally, from a local ecological point of view logging could be stopped and they could become National Parks. That has wider, complicated implications as well. Big picture stuff.

   LB – Australia has the worst record in the so-called first world countries for clearing bushland and extinction of our wildlife.

   GP Comment – True, but the biggest drivers of this are agriculture, tree plantations and other human activities that aren’t housing. The built environment impact is only about 4% of the average Australians land use.

   LB – But how do our local members respond to this?
   Stand behind legislation that promotes its further destruction.
   Member for Gosford Liesl Tesch and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty and Member for Wyong David Harris are both in a unique position to be our champions, to lead the way to a fairer, greener future.
   The Central Coast could be a showcase of what can be done to preserve the natural environment while our population grows.
   They could table a motion now to say: “No more destruction of bushland”.
   Surely, we can find some innovative and creative ways to build the housing you say we so desperately need while still preserving our bushland.

   GP – So what is your answer to this? There are about a million more Australians every few years.
   We have people who say the answer is higher density, just on already developed land. The David Suzuki Foundation are of this view.

   Others say we need our low density to keep in contact with nature in our backyards, grow our own food etc., and they can be a powerful lobby group like SOS (Save Our Suburbs).

   What land is your house on? Was it magically cleared without environmental destruction being involved? I know mine wasn’t.
   Perhaps only build on already cleared agricultural land adding pressure on food production and adding pressure to clear more land somewhere else.

   LB – Or would that be unprofitable?

   GP – I don’t know. Would it? If it is more expensive, obviously the cost of housing would increase for everyone, making a bad situation worse.

   LB – My question is, who benefits from these policies, these housing and industry developments?

   GP – The Land Councils are non profit community organisations. Their members and the wider Aboriginal and non Aboriginal community benefit and affordable housing is part of the proposals. people just generally need places to live.

   LB – It certainly isn’t those in need of affordable housing; it certainly isn’t the natural environment.

   GP – Affordable housing is part of the strategy. True, the natural environment does not benefit. How can it? If the population growth rate of about 1% continues, in about 70 years Australia will be 52 million people. Saving every last piece of urban fringe bushland would be lovely but pretty much impossible given this scenario.

   LB – I say we need to change these laws and quickly.

   GP – I say we have far bigger problems than this. The average Australian needs about 6.56 ha of land for their present profligate existence, most of which involves extreme ecological destruction. The built environment only makes up about 0.28 ha of that. So 6.28 ha of land use of the 6.56 ha. has nothing to do with the built areas.
   These are complex issues and my reply barely touches the sides.
   But simply destroying land rights for Aboriginal People is just plain wrong.

   Geoffrey Preece – A non indigenous person who was heavily involved in Environmental and Social activism from about 1983 but mostly from 1987 to 2003. Still involved but much less so these days. I believe in the Land Rights of Indigenous peoples and I believe in protection of the environment, and was always aware that the two would come in to conflict at times.
   I think land rights sometimes should be allowed to override my concern for the environment for quite complex reasons. There is potential for me to be labelled shameful from either side at any time.
   I may have made errors in my comments but if there are any it is not for lack of trying to be as accurate as possible.