We know who makes money from mining and this confirms it. The big corporations and meanwhile the land and people pay the price.
Green/Left Weekly
Mining company BHP Billiton’s whopping $10.5 billion profit for the second half of 2010 highlights the shameless greed of those making a fortune out of Australia’s valuable resources... Now BHP is on track to break an Australian record. Its profit for this financial year will likely be more than $20 billion. Rio Tinto and Xstrata have also announced huge profits.
The big corporations are always trying to convince us that high profits are good for everyone. The argument goes that the more they make, the more they’ll share around. But as the mining giants have shown, the more they make, the more they line their pockets. It’s true that some mining workers earn relatively high wages. But these wages, often for dangerous and difficult work, are peanuts compared with mining super-profits.
The mining of our land is about to step up and we must fight them and show the truth - that this exploitation is for money and it is obscene.
I'm not really interested in smashing Ngai Tahu Property - I think they have a role to play in the success of the iwi but sometimes I do wonder. The 1348 hectare Rakanui station, 10 kilometres south of Kaikoura has just been sold by NT Property to a Californian couple who plan to 'keep Rakanui private for the family'. NT property have taken a half million loss to flick the property on, their plans for a 'residential farm park containing 64 sections of 0.5ha each' was approved but Tony Sewell says they are moving out of 'large scale lifestyle developments'.
From The Malborough Express- Stuff
A sales history of the property shows the then 1348 hectare Rakanui station, 10 kilometres south of Kaikoura, was sold in 2005 for a gross price of $8 million. Last year, the reported 1345 hectares was sold to the American couple for $7.5 million by Ngai Tahu Property Ltd. The property had changed hands in 2004 for $2.3 million, and in 1983 for just $117,500.
So we have sold 1348 hectares of our land and we did it because it was considered another transactional item in the market place. The justifications are/will be many and varied but the facts remain.
There is something wrong with the model if that can happen - there is something in the tension between maintaining the putea and our kaitiakitanga role that needs to be really looked at and considered IMO. This is precious life giving land and i mean life giving in the spiritual as well as the practical sense. If this sale is okay - what next?
Perhaps mana whenua approved this sale, maybe they consider it a good thing - I hope not.
It is appalling how the Haitian people have been treated, a week and still no food or water or shelter - a week?
Cruise ships are still calling on private beaches. From the Guardian
"Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jetski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.
The 4,370-berth Independence of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean International, disembarked at the heavily guarded resort of Labadee on the north coast on Friday; a second cruise ship, the 3,100-passenger Navigator of the Seas is due to dock.
The decision to go ahead with the visit has divided passengers. The ships carry some food aid, and the cruise line has pledged to donate all proceeds from the visit to help stricken Haitians. But many passengers will stay aboard when they dock; one said he was "sickened".
"I just can't see myself sunning on the beach, playing in the water, eating a barbecue, and enjoying a cocktail while [in Port-au-Prince] there are tens of thousands of dead people being piled up on the streets, with the survivors stunned and looking for food and water," one passenger wrote on the Cruise Critic internet forum.
The Florida cruise company leases a picturesque wooded peninsula and its five pristine beaches from the government.
"In the end, Labadee is critical to Haiti's recovery; hundreds of people rely on Labadee for their livelihood," said John Weis, vice-president. "In our conversations with the UN special envoy of the government of Haiti, Leslie Voltaire, he notes that Haiti will benefit from the revenues that are generated from each call …
"We also have tremendous opportunities to use our ships as transport vessels for relief supplies and personnel to Haiti. Simply put, we cannot abandon Haiti now that they need us most."
Well there you go. You may even choose to believe those explanations. I think it is bullshit. They are trying to make profits - first, second and third. That's it.
Some of the comments in the original article are interesting. Both sides put in some good points.
"I only ask the question - what kind of morally bankrupt fat ass ignorant tourist would actually believe it's ok to to do this?
Surely the cruise company who pretends to be oh-so-concerned about the welfare of the Haitians could forgo their little beach-party just this once and instead donate whatever it is they claim to generate in revenue for the local population. Wankers."
and
"The cruise company could choose not to dock for a couple of weeks and still pay the Haitians who work for them - the Haitians wouldn't then loose financially and they could help their families if necessary. I can't imagine the Haitians are paid so much that it would make a big difference to the Cruise company.
Having said that, whether you're trying to force down a burger 60 miles or 600 miles from a disaster zone is a bit irrelevant really."
and
"I head out to Haiti this week, disaster response is my job. Now think about this before you get on your high moral horses. Let's just think about a supermarket that survives an earthquake ... should they give away their stock and end up bankrupt, or should they accept IOU's? Or should they stay closed 'out of respect'? No doubt for me - they should open and do business because people need to buy the things they are selling. And if they go out of business they add to the economic impact of the earthquake. Now shift to the recent floods in Cockermouth - did you hear the local people telling tourists to stay away 'out of respect'? Of course not, in fact traders worked desperately to get their businesses open for Christmas - they need the money. So what's the difference about a cruise ship in Haiti? How is it helping the people of Haiti to close down one of the few sources of income that hasn't been hit by the earthquake? I'm no fan of cruising, but it's business and it will bring revenue to Haiti and I'm sure most of the passengers will find a way to donate to the aid effort and whether their donation is generated by natural generosity or guilt will make not one jot of difference to the people it helps. There's no need for us to feel guilty about natural disasters per se, but we should feel guilty if we don't respond adequately to the plight of our fellow humans. Put away your bleeding hearts and put your hands in your pockets instead."
and
"How much of the revenues spent on the cruise go to the haitians? is it merely the guards salaries and a beach rental fee? or more than that?
Also, tourism isnt the answer to Haiti's economic problems. its more accurately part of its persistent servitude."
and
"This is only about distance isn't it; I mean people are only disgusted because the ship is physically close to people suffering. How far away is acceptable? The next island along? Florida? London?"
Any thoughts?
Hat tip Stuff white people do
