@ David Nixon (Posted July 31, 2017 at 12:48 pm): …

Comment on Save our trees: reduce Buffel, call 000, collaborate by Alex Nelson.

@ David Nixon (Posted July 31, 2017 at 12:48 pm): It may be recalled that in the early 2000s there was an attempt made to control buffel and couch grass in the Todd River from Heavitree Gap to Taffy Pick Crossing.
It was intended to be the first stage of rejuvenating the Todd and Charles rivers which was one of the major projects of the Alice in 10 program (i.e. “Alice Springs in 10 years”) announced soon after Denis Burke became Chief Minister early in 1999 and which continued for a time after Labor took office under Clare Martin.
One can still encounter fading and defaced “Alice in 10” promotional signs in various spots along the Todd River.
The grass eradication work commenced after the ultra wet years of 2000 and 2001, and also included removal of sand from the riverbed at Heavitree Gap.
The grass was sprayed with herbicide, which I recall was done by Aboriginal workers from Tangentyere Council.
Once the grass had died and was dry, it was cleared by controlled burning. For just that short stretch of the river the cost was about $400,000, from memory.
Both my father and I, independently of each other, predicted on air the entire exercise would prove to be a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money, and so it proved to be as there was no follow-up or extension of the work upstream in succeeding years.
The problem of grass fires causing the loss of the river red gums in the Todd River has been raised many times, including (for example) by Senator Bernie Kilgariff in April 1987, shortly before he retired from his political career.
That’s 30 years ago, and with so many “hot” topics (pardon the pun) that we all go on about, here we still are talking about it.

Recent Comments by Alex Nelson

The two territories at opposite ends of car sales stats
All the more reason to bring back Canberra control! (Now, where’s the entrance to my bunker?)


Cattle company has win in live export ban case
Perhaps I’m reading more into this decision than is warranted but it occurs to me there is possibly a principle of law here which may have much wider application.
I’m thinking in terms of government policies and decisions that have an influence or impact on climate change without due regard to scientific advice.
Are there wider implications from this decision?
While this case may rest with the decision of the Federal Court if the Commonwealth Government opts not to appeal it, I can foresee a similar case being pursued in the High Court of Australia to resolve what degree of responsibility the Commonwealth (and, for that matter, the NT Government, which is a creature of Federal law) has in regard to abiding by professional, fully researched scientific advice.


Country Liberal Party: custodians ignored on gallery
@ Surprised! (Posted June 1, 2020 at 7:25 am): Too timid to use your own name, and too dumb to get another person’s name right. No credibility in your comment.


Country Liberal Party: custodians ignored on gallery
@ Jack (Posted May 29, 2020 at 2:11 pm): Whatever amount of money “we” decide to “stump up” gives us no right or authority to dictate terms to Indigenous people on how or where their art and culture may be displayed for others.
What they decide might not cost as much as $50m; indeed, it’s the NT Government, not custodians and TOs, that “stumped up” that sum of money so it’s hypocritical to blame the latter.
And, if custodians and TOs decide they don’t want to go down this path at all, then the money becomes a moot point, doesn’t it?


Country Liberal Party: custodians ignored on gallery
Basically, whether from the Labor or Country Liberals, the debate about the National Aboriginal Art Gallery, is all about cultural appropriation of Aboriginal art to suit the ambitions of politicians, bureaucrats and the business sector.
The entire process, subsequent to the steering committee report, has been (and continues to be) completely mishandled arse-about; surely it has to be resolved in the following manner:
1. Do the traditional custodians and owners of this region want or support the concept of a “national” art gallery, either on its own or as part of a cultural centre?
2. If they support this concept, where do they want it to be built?
The answers to these two basic questions would provide the guidance on whether this project is approved or not in the first place, and then (if approved) where it can be built.
It’s their art, their culture, so let’s allow the custodians and TOs to be the primary authority on this matter, and the rest of us to abide by their wishes accordingly.


Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor