Before I ask a question or two on this article may I first say, well done for running as a Green in the Kimberley. I have spent some time up there and I am sure it is not a generally a friendly place for a Greens candidates. The Kimberley is beautiful (and somewhat foreboding). It has been seen by very few West Australians (never mind Australians) owing to the very limited tourism options and the obviously the distance.

There are many conflicting reports about the support or otherwise for the gas hub on James Price Point. Aboriginal members of the community seem somewhat divided but mostly in favour of the development. This is my impression from a distance. I openly admit the possibility of being in error.

What percentage of the vote, for you the Greens candidate, would you nominate as showing that there is real community opposition to the development - both inside and outside the local aboriginal community?
If this treshold is missed badly would you consider that the local community does support the development and cease supporting outside protestors?

If it does not go ahead, will you support future larger scale tourism ventures?

“The Greens say that it is morally wrong to use Compulsory Acquisition to pressure native title holders to trade their country for services and benefits to which we are all entitled as citizens. Funding for Indigenous development and sustainability should be provided from the immense revenue governments collect through resource development, regardless of where Indigenous people live.”

Welcome to the crazed nonsense of the greens. A total of 25% of the Australian land mass has been transferred to Native Title, for the benefit of about 3.5% of the population who identify as Aboriginal. There are continuing efforts by Aboriginal groups to acquire more Native Title.

Mining is a vital industry, and if some small fraction of the land tied up by the travesty of “Native Title”, an invention of an activist High Court, with no proper legal basis, then we should be grateful that some of the land will be put to good use.

Fortunately, the exposure of the greens in the current unelected government of Gillard, brought into being by her skill at corruption, has made the electorate aware of the toxic policies of the greens, and less of them will gain office.

Let us hope that the author is one of the failed candidates

I doubt that the author has any chance of election, which is something to be thankful for. Many of his arguments against development can be applied to any area in Australia, and don't make a lot of sense. The Kimberley is a vast area and it takes a vivid imagination indeed to believe that these projects, however large, will do anything more than scratch the surface of the region.

Basically the author is against development because he doesn't like development because its development and things might change, so that's bad. The article doesn't say how he earns his living, but the author should be aware that his living ultimately depends on development somewhere.

"Welcome to the crazed nonsense of the greens". How very succinct and terribly accurate. For the Greens, to bleat on about 'cultural sensitivity' is a travesty. Lets lock up the Kimberly in the same way that the 'wild rivers' legislation locked out the Aboriginal communities in Queensland.

All the reasons raised here to oppose the project are all the reasons in favour of the project.

Lets watch them trot out the usual 'junk science' and 'social' morality that is their hallmark. And yes, I am very familiar with the Kimberly and yes, I have been exposed to much of the Indigenous culture and people's there.

the Greens policies directly contribute to maintaining the status quo within aboriginal communities. Personally, I consider they need to be hauled before the human rights commission.

Lets hope the Kimberley can be saved the ravages of a greenie future.

It is a tough bit of the world, & doesn't need to be made harder by the type of stupidity that has destroyed Tassy.