Wednesday, December 22, 2010

You Carnt Have Your Cake And Eat It Too

Aboriginal leader takes aim at Greens plan of action | The Australian
Urging the Greens leader to respect indigenous rights, Kimberley Land Council boss Wayne Bergmann has called on Senator Brown to stop playing politics with the James Price Point gas hub, saying it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Aborigines to get money, jobs and social infrastructure from Woodside.


Red Hand would just like to remind everyone what Mr Bergmann said on the 8th September, 2010 on the ABC Kimberley Radio State's interest in James Price Point bigger than expected when he was interviewed by Vanessa Mills and Ben Collins.

Mr Bergmann says “the project as it stands will not employ any Aboriginal people from the Dampier Peninsula due to a lack of education and training”

http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/09/08/3006090.htm

8 comments:

  1. Firstly let me say that Wayne Begman has not been ratified as an "Aboriginal Leader"by Aboriginal people This is a major fallacy that the mainstream media and the puppeteers have perpetrated for their own ends.
    Notice that Joseph Roe does not get recognised by "The Australian"newspaper as an Aboriginal leader.Yet he is the unrecognised leader of many traditional owners that are opposed to this toxic avengers plea to Bob Brown.
    There is great opposition to this gas plant,white and black.
    Many many aboriginal people do not see Wayne or his gas plant as their saviour or ticket.
    Many aboriginal people aim for their own dreams which Wayne intends to crush by allowing this abomination on land that he has never lived or practised cultural ceremonies.Do not listen to Wayne Bergman....he is orchestrating the media...its another ploy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is saltwater country which will be directly affected. Listen to & respect the saltwater people, not Wayne Bergman & his KLC cronies. They are freshwater people from country not directly affected by the proposed gas hub. Bergman & the KLC have been in bed with Barnett et al & cannot be trusted. The KLC should be supporting Joe Roe & the Goolarabooloo people, but are only interested in what they can wangle for themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The KLC has become a curse,and should be driven out like one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bergman,as usual,makes a few feeble minded points,that only go to illustrate once more how his masters are Woodside.Everyone knows that the people of the Dampier Peninsular will get more money etc by not having the gas plant there.The gas is under their land and sea,so the royalties and taxes collected must be shared with them.1.5 billion over 50 years is a measly $30,000,000 a year.A CEO's salary today.What will CEO's be earning in 50 years time?$300,000,000 a year?THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE!THE KLC HAVE CANNING BASIN GAS ON THEIR PLANS.COAL MINES,RAILROADS,URANIUM,THEY ARE NOT JUST IN BED WITH THESE SOB'S,THEY ARE GOING DEEP THROAT!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Exactly!And the ones who do have jobs now stand to loose them.Come on Fat Cats,who's your daddy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guys, I just can't abide by this paranoiac stuff that gets posted here.

    Wayne Bergmann "orchestrating" the media?

    How on earth does Wayne Bergmann "orchestrate" massive corporations like News, Fairfax, WAN, AP, 10, 7, 9, even the ABC?

    He is the CEO of a non government organisation.

    Statements like that are rubbish. Absolute nonsense.

    When you make a statement like that - why should I believe anything you say?

    The fact that Wayne has not lived on whatever piece of land is irrelevant. He is the CEO of a native title representative body.

    So you think the KLC is a curse?

    Really - and who is going to take over representation of the Native Title claims?

    Have you read the Report of the Working Party into Native Title Payments? It was released last year.

    Yeah you can be a legend in your own lunchtime banging on about Bergmann. You can give yourself a pat on the back for trying when the gas Hub goes ahead and say to all and sundry "well, don't blame me!"

    Some of you are looking on this $1.5 billion in terms of it being welfare. If that is the way you look at it then you are stuffed. $1.5 Billion is not welfare, it is capital. Use it as Capital and the wealth that can be created will be astounding.

    It won't happen though, because of the glass bead mentality.

    I am against the gas.
    I despair at some of the drivel I read in these comments pages.

    Tell me I am wrong.

    Sharpen up!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue is the manner in which the KLC as a Native Title Rep Body has conducted its business. Rather than being up front and honest with Aboriginal Groups in the Kimberley they expect "blind faith".

    The benefits that will arise from an LNG Precinct have definite "POTENTIAL" to provide positive outcomes however, the lack of transparency and smoke and mirrors tactics being employed it is likely that no good will come of the benefits and Aboriginal people will continue to distrust government, the media, industry and critically themselves.

    Wayne Bergman commenced this process with the best of ntentions for Aboriginal people of the Kimberley but it has now gotten too big for the KLC to manage unfortunately. Not everything can be achieved in one go!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ the issue is in ...

    That is very interesting.

    The smoke and mirrors thing. The Native Title payments Working Group Report cited excessive confidentiality as being a constraint on maximising benefits.

    The same issue arises with the Heritage Protection Agreement signed by the Land Council and Woodside. The very first test of that agreement - the cone penetrometer testing - found the two parties with different interpretations of the agreement.

    The KLC ultimately conceded the point to Woodside, saying that it did fall within the letter of the agreement and their approach then hinged on the issue of "good faith".

    The obvious question is "how did they negotiate an agreement that they disagreed on so quickly?"

    Now both parties claimed confidentiality and refused to reveal the content of the Heritage Protection agreement.

    So you have to wonder at how well the agreement was negotiated. Also it supports the point made in the report about confidentiality clauses as well as your anecdotal observations.

    You can cut and paste the link below if you are into this kind of stuff. Thanks for your very good response to my initial comment.



    http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(3A6790B96C927794AF1031D9395C5C20)~Working+Group+report+-+final+version.pdf/$file/Working+Group+report+-+final+version.pdf

    ReplyDelete