The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Native title - speaking for their country > Comments

Native title - speaking for their country : Comments

By Greg McIntyre, published 12/10/2009

Queensland's controversial Wild Rivers laws could be invalid even though the government says it won't extinguish native title.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
JCB,

What do you then say about the vast tracks of wetlands south of Aurukun that are now protected from future sand mining thanks to Wild Rivers?

How do you respond to media reports today that Wild Rivers could halt the Cape Alumina mine?

The Aurukun project hasn't yet begun, and while it sucks that it is exempt, surely if you are so concerned about this you'll join with the Aurukun Church elders and greenies in calling for the exemption to be removed before the mine proposal is finalised?

What is your response to the traditional owners that want a big bauxite mine? Do you support them? What about those who oppose it? How do you reconcile the diversity of opinions then, if you are fully aware of the massive environmental degradation of the mine? Or do you simply support whatever position Noel Pearson takes?

Finally, McCoughlin and Sinclair offer only an extremely vague and vacuous assessment of how "small-scale" activities are affected. There are no concrete examples given, as with yours, which are about as credible as the common claim about "eddie's passionfruit farm", which is not even within a future wild river area, and would not be affected if it was.
Posted by C.R, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 7:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cr, i doubt that you have even looked at the wild rivers legislation, but it is in you little green book of indoctrinated mantras.
the principle of ecologically sustainable development which seeks to balance development, cultural heritage and environmental values has been abandoned in the wild rivers legislation.
the only factor on which a development decision can be made is whether or not the natural values of the river system could be reduced. it is an absolute preservation principle. However decision makers cannot have regard to cultural heritage values in assessing decisions. so if a development does not harm the river system there is no basis of refusal. whilst under the ecological sustainable development that the rest of the state operates under development which impacts on cultural heritage can be refused.read the act don't jump on the green marketing bandwagon. we have excluded indigenous people from decision making over their land, it is environmental colonialism
Posted by slasher, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 9:11:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CR,
It's not about simply adopting whatever position Noel Pearson takes. However, I do think that Noel Pearson makes a very strong point in observing that previously a workable balance between environmental protection and indigenous interests has been struck. Certainly these interests can coexist (establishing a culture-based economy in indigenous communities in based on this idea), however the wild rivers legislation fails to achieve a workable balance.

A close examination of the operation of the WR Act in conjunction with the WR Code, declarations and other statutes enlivened by the Act, reveals that it has unintended and disproportionate affects on indigenous communities, for example by stifling opportunities for small-scale economic development.

Given the location of WR declarations (primarily over land subject to registered native title claims or other indigenous interests), there was always the potential for the WR legislation to disproportionately impact on indigenous communities. Despite this, as McIntyre notes, there is no express protection for native title or other indigenous interests, where those interests are negatively affected by the WR legislation itself.

Certainly I am not against environmental protection but the point is that environmental protection does not have to occur in a way which tramples over indigenous rights and fails to provide adequate protection for indigenous interests. Community projects like setting up market gardens should not be prohibited by WR legislation, when they are thoroughly consistent with the purpose of Act.

There is plenty of literature on establishing a culture-based economy in indigenous communities in the Cape, with reference to activities already undertaken in communities including Aurukun, Lockhart etc where WR declarations have been made or are proposed (if you are seeking concrete examples).

I am not criticising the objects of the WR legislation (the protection of river systems), rather my argument is that the WR scheme goes about achieving its purpose in the wrong way, because it provides insufficient protection for indigenous interests. WR could have been an opportunity for the Queensland Government to work more in partnership with traditional owners, safeguarding indigenous interests and their capacity to pursue development opportunities which are consistent with environmental preservation.
Posted by JCB, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 11:22:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JCB,

Yes, please illustrate the concrete examples of small-scale development projects that have been stopped by Wild Rivers.

And no, Alan Creek's cattle dams (as per the article in The Australian today) is NOT an example, as these are not affected by Wild Rivers. The article today is entirely indicative of the misinformation from the anti Wild Rivers camp.

And no, outstations are not affected either, contrary to this common piece of misinformation as well.

Please, convince me.
Posted by C.R, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 7:55:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is an interesting and informative discussion. Thanks to JCB for pointing us to the article by McLoughlin and Sinclair - I found an online copy at http://www.apo.org.au/sites/default/files/wildrivers.pdf . While the article is enlightening concerning the more symbolic sources of opposition to the Wild Rivers declarations, like C.R I don't see that it provides evidence that the declarations will provide particularly significant impediments to sustainable development in affected areas.

I agree that the Aurukun expansion should not have been exempted, but it seems to me that the PNG pipeline is unlikely to have similarly detrimental environmental effects to a bauxite mine.

There appears to be a highly orchestrated campaign under way that recruits legitimate Aboriginal aspirations and connection to country to the cause of those who wish to expand large scale extractive industries. The involvement of Peter Holmes a Court, for example, is a pretty obvious pointer to who is backing the anti-Wild Rivers campaign.

I agree that market gardens, grazing and other relatively low impact economic activities would be highly desirable for Aboriginal communities on the Cape, but it seems to me that these potential industries are being used as a smokescreen by those who want access - particularly for mining purposes. At any rate, if there is such a will for such small-scale community-driven activities, why aren't there any to speak of already? The market garden at Coen was apparently allowed to lapse into disrepair in the absence of any WR-type restrictions, and I'm not aware that there has been any great success by Indigenous-controlled grazing activities to date.

To some extent Hasbeen is correct - even if typically snarkily expressed - Native Title rights should not confer upon traditional owners any more right to stuff up the few remaining relatively pristine river systems in Queensland any more than non-Indigenous landowners are since their activities have been latterly restricted due to the damage that they have caused.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 8:49:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan "Since I'm also acquainted with the factional aspects of Indigenous politics"

Which politics is this? oh dear ...its not that horrid factional politics? How dare Aborigines be factional and disintegrated and make it difficult for the Greens and the WS to get consent for their silly ideas/legislation. Where is Ronan Lee now?

Ronan are you still there in the Indooroopilly electorate somewhere? Come out come out where ever you are!

and this:

"there's very little evidence to suggest that the mining, pastoral and tourism developments that currently exist in Cape York have been of much benefit to Aboriginal people at all, is there?"

I think you've answered your own question here.

No offence comrade, but I completely disagree with you.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 16 October 2009 3:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy