276 Black vs Green over land rights; Teachers Union to boycott Literacy and Numeracy tests

Black vs Green over land rights; Teachers Union to boycott Literacy and Numeracy tests

(1) Government schools' Teachers' Union to boycott Literacy and Numeracy tests
(2) Catholic and Independent school teachers reject boycott of tests
(3) Opposition bill backing Aborigines against Green "wild rivers" legislation declared constitutional
(4) Land rights under threat from the green lobby
(5) Laser enrichment of Uranium "dangerous because it is almost undetectable"

(1) Government schools' Teachers' Union to boycott Literacy and Numeracy tests

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/12/2870723.htm?section=justin

Testing times: Gillard, teachers on collision course

Updated April 12, 2010 19:59:00

Australia's biggest education union has decided to go ahead with its threatened boycott of next month's national literacy and numeracy tests.

The Australian Education Union (AEU) represents teachers in public schools and the union's national executive has voted for an immediate ban on teachers handing out the tests.

The Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, is equally adamant the exam will take place and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Government will not be intimidated.

Mr Rudd is all for national testing for literacy and numeracy and the publication of each school's results on the Government's My School website.

"Mums and dads right across Australia, schools right across the country want to see how their school is performing and how we lift the quality of the performance of each school," he said.

"[It] doesn't matter where you come from; small towns, large cities, state schools, non-government schools, people actually want to see the performance of their schools lifted."

Students in years three, five, seven and nine are due to sit the tests next month, but some teachers are worried about how the results will be used.

Mr Rudd has dismissed their concerns that it will lead to the creation of simple league tables, ranking schools from best to worst.

"I don't believe anyone should be fearful of transparency. We need to have a transparent system which is all about lifting the standards of our schools," he said.

But the Government is on a collision course with the AEU.

AEU president Angelo Gavrielatos says the national executive has voted unanimously for a ban on the tests.

"The resolve is unwavering. This is a touchstone issue for the profession," he said.

"We take our ethical and professional responsibility to our students and our school communities very seriously, and if the Government won't act to protect students, well then clearly we will.

"In schools and in education we always celebrate success, but what we can't do is reinforce failure.

"We're talking about children as young as in year three, five, seven and nine. International research and evidence shows that league tables are damaging for students, damaging for schools."

Parental supervision

And Mr Gavrielatos is still angry about the Government's suggestion that parents could help supervise the test if some teachers will not.

"You would have seen today a number of parent organisations - Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria - have all come out and condemned that announcement," he said.

"Ultimately it would be an extreme act by any Labor government to consider such action."

Ms Gillard says the union has made the wrong decision and is appealing to teachers to ignore the order and administer the tests.

"I'll be saying to teachers stay the course, stay with the national testing. I'm saying to the AEU it's made the wrong decision," she said.

"As Minister for Education I'm in the process of canvassing all options to ensure the national testing rolls out as scheduled." ...

(2) Catholic and Independent school teachers reject boycott of tests

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/13/2871853.htm?section=justin

Independent school teachers reject NAPLAN boycott

Posted April 13, 2010 19:17:00

Catholic and Independent school teachers around Australia say a plan by state school teachers to boycott the annual NAPLAN student numeracy and literacy tests is not appropriate.

The Australian Education Union (AEU) is planning to boycott the tests because it says the results will be used to "name and shame" under-performing schools on the Federal Government's My School website.

The Independent Education Union's federal secretary, Chris Watt, says teachers in non-government schools throughout Australia were consulted widely on the issue.

"What we know from those conversations is that our members by and large did not see, and were not proposing from themselves, a ban on the NAPLAN testing as an appropriate way to go," he said.

Mr Watt says teachers in the non-government schools see the tests and the website as two separate issues.

"They want us to focus on the structure and nature of the website and talk and engage with those who are responsible for the way the website looks and is managed and the information that goes onto it," he said.

"The NAPLAN tests themselves, while they provide information to the website, are not the problem and that is the determination and consideration that our members made."

The Federal Government says it is considering other ways to deliver the tests if teachers and parents refuse to help.

Some parent groups say they will not supervise the tests either.

Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard says there are other options, but she will not say what they are or how much they will cost.

"I will be talking to my ministerial colleagues from around the country later this week, but I don't doubt their determination to roll out the national tests," she said.

"We will look at all options. One option is asking parents to assist with the rollout of those tests, obviously under appropriate supervision."

(3) Opposition bill backing Aborigines against Green "wild rivers" legislation declared constitutional

Legal expert backs Liberals on plan to turn back wild rivers

Sid Maher    The Australian    March 30, 2010  12:00AM   

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/legal-expert-backs-liberals-on-plan-to-turn-back-wild-rivers/story-e6frgczf-1225847185273

TONY Abbott's private member's bill to overturn Queensland's Wild Rivers legislation has received backing from constitutional expert George Williams.

Professor Williams, director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at NSW University, in a submission to a Senate inquiry into the bill, said the Opposition Leader's move was constitutional.

It would render "inoperative" the sections in Queensland's Wild Rivers legislation that diminish decision-making power of Aboriginal native title-holders over their land.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced last year that three major waterways on Cape York -- the Archer, Stewart and Lockhart rivers -- had been declared wild rivers, thus imposing severe restrictions on development of land near the rivers or catchment areas.

The move has incensed indigenous leaders on the cape, including Noel Pearson, who has accused the Queensland government of riding roughshod over Aboriginal rights.

Mr Pearson is due to appear before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into the bill in Canberra today.

The Queensland government has dismissed Mr Abbott's bill as a "political stunt".

Mr Pearson has backed the move, arguing "it allows for agreements to be made between government and traditional owners and where traditional owners in a certain area decide they want legislative protection such as the Wild Rivers legislation, they can ask for it and negotiate the terms".

In his submission, Professor Williams said the races power of the Constitution allowed the commonwealth to make special laws for the people of any race for whom it was deemed necessary.

There was no doubt that Aboriginal people constitute "people of any race" for the purposes of the races power.

Professor Williams, who will also appear before the committee today, said enacting Mr Abbott's bill would mean the Queensland government would not be able to regulate wild river areas that were also subject to native title without first obtaining agreement from the Aboriginal traditional owners.

He told The Australian he hoped the legal opinion would allow the debate to move on "to the issues of policy to be debated".

(4) Land rights under threat from the green lobby

Ross Fitzgerald    The Australian    March 27, 2010  12:00AM   

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/land-rights-under-threat-from-the-green-lobby/story-e6frg6zo-1225845897462

New environmental laws are undermining indigenous and non-indigenous property rights

THE protection of property rights in Australia is an important issue that is uniting indigenous and non-indigenous landholders.

Both are concerned that in recent years the introduction of vegetation clearing laws, compulsory property acquisitions and, recently, the Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland threaten their livelihoods. So they are seeking recognition and protection of their rights where they have been removed by environmental and heritage laws, and just compensation if these rights are removed.

One unlikely champion to take a stand on this issue was Peter Spencer. Although his past and business record did not bear close examination, earlier this year Spencer became a folk hero during his hunger strike on his property in southern NSW. Denied use of his land by the commonwealth commitments to the Kyoto Protocol enacted by the state government and denied the compensation that the Australian Constitution entitled him to because the NSW government, rather than Canberra, implemented the land use laws, he decided to take a stand. He certainly won't be the last.

Surely indigenous and non-indigenous people have a reasonable expectation that control over their land means they will determine future land use and management subject to a fair and reasonable regulatory framework.

This is critical if governments and interest groups are to be dissuaded from seeking to impose their will without fear of legal challenge or the need to consider statutory provisions for negotiation or compensation.

As Noel Pearson has pointed out, the Wild Rivers legislation introduced last year by the Queensland Labor government is symptomatic of the weakness of the system of property rights, and ever-bolder actions will certainly follow if such actions are left unchallenged.

Although the commonwealth Constitution provides for compensation on "just terms" where there is an acquisition of property, this is not binding on the states.

Amendment of the Constitution to make it binding on the states is practically impossible. What may be possible is to use existing provisions of the Constitution to make governments pay "just terms" compensation.

It may be possible in some circumstances to argue that the states have acted as an agent of the commonwealth in implementing environmental laws, , for example where states have acted to meet the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the commonwealth, or in implementing a Council of Australian Governments agreement, or to protect the values of a World Heritage area.

Indigenous peoples in Australia have been fighting for the recognition of their property rights for the past 200 years. According to Pearson, "that is what the struggle for land rights was fundamentally about". Yet just as land rights are being gained, Pearson claims "state governments and extreme green groups are legislating to reduce the property rights of indigenous Australians".

This whole issue is fundamentally about land rights, he says, not the environment.

Some Cape York indigenous groups believe they have a compelling case against the Queensland government for taking away their native title right to "speak for country"; in other words to plan and make decisions for their lands.

They also believe there is a compelling case in relation to the removal of economic development rights by the Wild Rivers declarations. This is because there is a strong argument that the restriction of land use for conservation purposes is an acquisition.

The Wild Rivers Act, like Queensland's Vegetation Management Act, makes no allowance for provision of fair and just compensation. Indigenous and non-indigenous landholders are not compensated for the loss of property value and property rights that result from any declaration.

The lack of basic safeguards in the Wild Rivers legislation has arguably led to a breakdown of integrity and accountability mechanisms and has perpetrated a serious injustice against indigenous people. A clear example is the decision by the Queensland government to declare the Aurukun wetlands as a high preservation area without consulting indigenous landholders.

The state government intends to place up to 80 per cent of Cape York, including large tracts of indigenous land, under Wild Rivers declarations. Until relatively recently, conservation areas in Queensland such as national parks or nature refuges could only be declared following the acquisition of the land and just compensation to the landholder, or through the agreement of the landholder.

The Wild Rivers Act explanatory notes advise that the level of preservation sought for wild rivers is higher than for ecologically sustainable development but below that generally provided in a national park. ESD is a well-established principle that reasonably allows for development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

But Wild Rivers declarations seek to achieve a level of protection closer to a national park, where economic development is virtually prohibited.

For indigenous people on Cape York and elsewhere on the continent, a key concern is the recognition and protection of their rights, followed by compensation for the denial of rights. For many indigenous people it seems ironic that, while they have recently seen the return of their traditional lands, control over these lands is being removed by government at the behest of white-dominated conservation and heritage groups.

Recently, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott introduced a wild rivers private member's bill. The Senate has referred this bill for inquiry and report, with submissions closing at the end of this month. Hopefully this will provide an opportunity for the Senate to give full consideration to the effects of environmental laws on indigenous and non-indigenous landholders, as well as dealing with the integrity and accountability issues that arise where there are inadequate safeguards to landholders' rights.

The application of the Constitution to provide just compensation where the imposition of such environmental laws removes landholder rights would be an important step to achieving an equitable system. All Australians -- indigenous and non-indigenous -- deserve just compensation in situations where the imposition of environmental and heritage laws removes their rights as landholders.

(5) Laser enrichment of Uranium "dangerous because it is almost undetectable"

Australian laser 'threatens nuclear security'

By Washington correspondent Craig McMurtrie

Updated April 13, 2010 06:23:00

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/13/2870904.htm?section=justin

As a summit of world leaders begins in Washington, a prominent US physicist is warning that an Australian invention poses a significant security threat to nuclear security.

Dr Francis Slakey, from Georgetown University in Washington DC, says a revolutionary uranium enrichment process using lasers has the potential to make it much easier for rogue countries or terrorist organisations to conceal any nuclear program.

In scientific circles the process is called 'separation of isotopes by laser excitation', or SILEX, for short. It is a way of enriching uranium using pulsed lasers that was invented by two Australian scientists - Dr Michael Goldsworthy and Dr Horst Struve - at Lucas Heights in Sydney.

The pair won an award for it and a grant from the Federal Government.

Dr Slakey admires their achievement.

"It's a significant advance from a physics point of view because they were able to accomplish what 20 other countries were unable to," he said.

But he is worried about the threat SILEX poses to global nuclear security.

Under a deal with the US in 1998, development of the technology was transferred to the United States and in 2001 SILEX was classified.

Now General Electric Hitachi wants a licence from US regulators to build the world's first SILEX plant in North Carolina.

Dr Slakey says that cannot be allowed because it is too dangerous.

"From everything I've heard about this plant, it's too risky to proceed," he said.

Dr Slakey says laser enrichment is dangerous because it is almost undetectable.

The SILEX process is 75 per cent smaller than current enrichment technologies, drawing no more electricity than a dozen homes.

"This next generation technology is so efficient and so small that we would no longer be able to see it with our satellites and we would no longer be able to detect whether there was some power source going into it, because it uses so little power," he said.

And with US president Barack Obama convening his nuclear security summit in Washington, Dr Slakey says regulators must take into account proliferation risks before licensing new technologies.

"Historically every enrichment technology - that is every technology that has been used to develop nuclear fuel, every single one of them - has proliferated despite best efforts to keep the secret," he said.

America's Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it will look closely at security measures to protect SILEX's secrets.

But that is not enough to reassure Dr Slakey.

"Those rogue countries that may pursue a technology don't do it unless it's been industrially proven, and so prior to that if it's just bench science or R and D [research and development], they don't go that path," he said.

"They'll pursue a different path for proliferation.

"So actually right now the genie's well contained."

Dr Slakey says this is one Australian invention that should be stopped.