On the "common good" and personal evil

In the Gospel of John it is Caiaphas who says "Don't you realise that it is better for you to let one man die for the people, instead of having the whole nation destroyed?" (11: 50, GNB) Of course this is a unique case, and the person being spoken of was willing to lay his life down for not just all of the nation, but for all of creation. It is a lot easier for us to volunteer someone else to suffer than to elect to take the sacrifices ourselves. Quite often it is the few of the "other" who have to take a big hit so that all may benefit.

This is happening for us all on our behalf, usually without our knowledge: those who oppose progress are seen as "obstructionist" and often find themselves crushed under the wheels of law or regulation in our name without us even knowing.

Today I had the uncomfortable situation on meeting with this face to face. I was in a meeting with many graziers who own properties within the proposed "Proposed Galilee Basin State Development Area." These people all make a living out of properties lying along the proposed railway corridor between the proposed coal mines in the Galilee Basin and the proposed port at Bowen. They have been collectively negotiating with the project proponents for many years with the objective of minimising the disruption to their businesses from the easement (which in one case I heard diagonally bisects a property) and the effects that this will have on the floodplain (apparently there are consultants out there who believe that a raised railway will not effect the flow of water in flood seasons). They have negotiated in good faith and within the law.

Apparently, this is not enough any more. Their efforts have been troublesome for proponents and the government. The state government (which has already reneged on pre election promises made to this group) is seeking to designate an area for the project to proceed with minimal disruption for the proponents. This instrument has been used in the past to designate small areas of land to ensure a project may continue. The purpose of the instrument is for the state government (on our behalf) to designate the primary purpose of the land to be the construction of the railway and to set the rules of engagement between landowners and developers in such a way that the desired development is best progressed. The state government also takes planning approval responsibility away from local government in the area and is based around the principle of activities that are suitable with the intended purpose and those that are unsuitable. The requirements for consultation with local landowners (or even informing them until projects are approved) are removed, and the discussion of compensation for landowners only need occur after work on the project has commenced.

The scale of this proposed area is truly enormous. It stretches 500 km and is 30 km wide, encompassing 18 000 square kilometers. Some of this is prime farming land (250 000 hectares) or horticultural land (140 000 hectares), all of which has been dedicated to the single purpose of enabling projects to occur on our behalf (even if their benefit is being brought into question - see the Australia Institute's economic modelling for further information). It may only be 100 businesses standing between the now and the next mining boom for the state, but these are real people and they rightly feel abandoned by our politicians, our bureaucracy and society as a whole. They are voiceless and powerless in the face of big business and the ignorance of our broader community.

This is occurring at the same time as the trimming back of green tape. One of the proposed changes is removing the need to publically release all mining proposals for comments. This is proposed to be reduced to a 'local only' approach where only local councils or effected landowners are allowed to contest the approval of mining leases. The ability of other organisations to contest the Environmental Impact Statement remains, but the shortening of the notice time means that it will be very difficult for groups from the broader society to make comment - and they are to be restricted to comments on 'local issues' only. In other words, we as a society will only hear of a mine proposal after it has been approved, and then will be only be able to discuss the mitigating factors rather than the project itself.

So, back to us. There is a movement that looks at the way asylum seekers are treated in our name and says (quite rightly) that the government has exceeded its mandate to act on our behalf. This, also is happening in our name. While these people will be compensated to a certain degree, the rights that they have had to have a say of what happens on their own land has been greatly degraded (and their economic futures irrevocably harmed). This has happened in our name, and because it is a long way from cities, with very little scrutiny by the general population.

So, I repent of the ignorance I have of our political and regulatory processes, my willingness to be sucked into a system that disguises personal abuse as democracy and my failure to act on behalf of this particular group over the years. I can only commit myself to listen to people in these and similar situations and to continue to proclaim the truth of what is happening in any way possible.

To the GBSDC effected farmers, I am truly sorry for what is happening to you in my name and ask your forgiveness.