A refugee from Melbourne and Geelong's apartment body-corporate ripoffs describes how, even in rural Victoria, you can't get away from Melbourne's cost of living dystopia. But there are new problems, including an epidemic of sheep-stealing, coinciding with some eastern festivals.
Over recent centuries in the history of the West government has been about people and people’s rights. This led to some progress – at least formally, if not in practice - in relation to the rights of individuals. Such civic protections have been enshrined in systems of law and legislature i.e in formal constitutions which limit the power of leaders/rulers over the people. Formal constitutions often follow a tradition of establishing representative parliaments, an independent judiciary and an executive (in Australia, the Government’s cabinet) or some variation thereof and linked to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta tradition is about protecting people from summary execution, or summary jailing or confiscation of property.These protections were sometimes far from perfect. Property rights were certainly not well protected for many English villagers who were removed from their land during the period of enclosures and industrialisation. Others such as Habeas Corpus – protection against arbitrary detention – have been somewhat weakened with recent anti-terrorist laws. The main point here is that for a past few hundred years (at least) the focus of constitutions for western governments has been on protecting the rights of people (and property rights).
But with the damaging effects of industrial corporate capitalism now very clear the need for protections for land, for Country, is being increasing recognised. Active long-term environmentalists, such as Jenny Warfe, seem now to be realising this. This is particularly important for Australia, as the driest continent with poor soils and a record of serious degeneration since European settlement. As noted by Charles Massy in his PhD research, many farmers are undergoing a fundamental transformation in their perception of Australia as a natural system and of their farming practices. Increasingly Australian farmers are coming to see properties as less of a farm and more of a part of the large and complex continent of Australia, as part of a “’nourishing terrain’ which gives and receives life; is a timeless entity; and which must be carefully managed for perpetuity”. These same farmers are coming to appreciate and acknowledge the “deep and rigorously-tested natural science” of Australia’s Indigenous cultures and in doing so appreciate the need for reconciliation with these same people for past injustices.
The truth is we need to start taking care of this precious continent. We need to start regenerative practices that reverse the environmental damage done over the past 200 years. This type of deep ecological understanding to which Australian farmers are now awakening is not unique to Australia’s Indigenous people. Indigenous groups around the world share a similar understanding; an understanding that has evaded western thinking European colonists for too long. Ecuador is one nation that has entrenched its native people’s deep connection to the land in a new constitution which passed referendum in 2008.
Perhaps it is time to radically rethink our relation to our land. To redesign our constitution so as to properly recognise Indigenous peoples and to protect not just people (and their property rights) but the very land itself. In this regard, perhaps we also need to reconsider our state boundaries and organise these not just around human communities, but along natural systems, much as Aboriginal nations were organised. A logical organising principle for the world’s driest continent is around water, and river systems in particular. Significant progress has already been made in this regard, with the FOWTOR state proposal. So let us begin the preparatory work to create a new Australia – one that addresses the injustices and ignorance of the past, a new constitution and a new arrangement, a constitution that recognises Australia for the delicate and complex land it is. A constitution that will support the Australian people and the Australian landscape in perpetuity. Perhaps a constitution less about government as we have understood it in the past and more about transient stewardship of the land as something to be shared with future generations. And hopefully in a better, not worse state, than we inherited it.
This is a good film about how government and capitalism deprives people of freedom and gets them to coerce each other. It attributes increases in wealth since the second world war to increases in financial freedom, apparently not understanding the importance of the vast store of fossil fuels we have exploited since the 18th century. Nonetheless it makes good and valid points on a classic them.
Comments and discussion welcome.
For instance, is it really sufficient to 'see' your prison in order to escape it?
We need to be sure that a transfer of control over the Murray-Darling water is constitutional, Independent MP Tony Windsor said today.
The Commonwealth may well need a referendum before it takes control of the Murray-Darling.
He says the details of the federal government’s plan to take over the Murray-Darling Basin must be made public and the basin’s communities and irrigators must be consulted.
Mr Windsor issued a joint statement with another key Independent, Peter Andren.
“All the negotiation around the Howard Government’s $10 billion water plan has involved federal and state leaders, ministers and bureaucrats with no sign that the communities and irrigators who rely on the Murray-Darling will get a say,” Mr Windsor said.
“My independent colleague, Peter Andren and I are calling on the federal and state governments to make the draft legislation and explanatory documentation available to the public with a view to launching an extensive community consultation process.
“If the Commonwealth government is going to take over control of the Murray-Darling, with the agreement of the States, once Victoria gets on board, there are questions that need to be answered.
"Section 100 of the constitution states: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.
“So ‘the residents’ of a State have the same rights as their state governments when it comes to the regulation of water,” Mr Windsor said.
Mr Andren believes that there is also questions of:
How much authority is actually to be handed over by the states.
How duplication of roles may occur and therefore duplication of costs to the taxpayer.
Mr Andren asks, “What are the Commonwealth’s plans for the allocation of water to the towns, irrigators, and to environmental flows?
"How can anyone accept the federal government’s proposal without this information?
He concluded, “This takeover requires extensive consultation for all the so-called stake holders in the Murray-Darling basin before anything is
decided and the federal government must make the details of its plan publicly available.
“The people of the basin must be confident that the Commonwealth is not just creating another layer of bureaucracy and that there will be sufficient checks and balances in place against the misuse of our precious water resources,” Mr Andren said.
SOURCE: Breaking national news from Rural Press weekly agricultural papers, 24 July 2007
updated daily on FarmOnline.
Recent comments