I don't get it ?

I am trying to relate your article to what Noel Pearson had to say on this subject on TV.

As I recall , the Four Rivers has always been Aboriginal Land , the Qland Gov exorcised the Au Lease from the Four Rivers Aboriginal Land and now the whole FR and Lease has been declared "World Heritage" .
Land confiscation by default .

Please explain .

Two points to clarify the Bauxite leases were set aside for development under an act of Parliament in the 1970s. A condition of access to the mineral resource was that a smelter and refinery had to be built. The leaseholders did not undertake the development. The Beattie Government through an act of Parliament compulsory acquired the mineral resources of the leaseholder.
The Wild Rivers Legislation specifically excluded this area from the operation of its legislation. Thus any new mine associated with the bauxite release will be assessed under the Environment Protection Act, in which decision makers have to take the principal of ecological sustainable development into account like the Integrated Planning Act for other developments throughout the state. Other development in the Wild Rivers areas have to meet the higher test under the Wild Rivers legislation, which is preservation of the natural systems not ecological sustainable development.

As I recall it - Ronan Lee (ex Labor backbencher who defected to the Greens) championed the WR legislation (which was written by Wilderness society eco fundamentalists.)

The school of eugenics is alive and well and foundational to WS interpretations of Aboriginal people and cultures

I find the "white fella" - "black fella" distinction objectionable. The bauxite is not for the benefit of white fellas, but for the rich fellas. As well as leaving the mining landscape damaged, the refinery (currently proposed for Bowen) will leave a gigantic pond of caustic red mud for the people of Bowen to look after, and the smelter (possibly in Gladstone) will pollute that area with fluoride emissions, while the fossil fuels burnt to power the complete project will count against Australians' carbon budget. The finished aluminium however, will be exported, since we already produce six times as much aluminium as we consume. Thus we (both black and white fellas) end up with the damaged landscape, the toxic waste and the GHG emissions while someone else (rich fellas) gets the metal and the profits.

The idea that the Wild Rivers Act only applies to "black fellas" is also wrong. When Peter Beattie was campaigning for the 2004 Queensland elections he published his Wild Rivers agenda, formerly at http://www.teambeattie.com/db_download/Wild_Rivers_04_01_28.pdf but now archived at http://www.peakoil.org.au/dave.kimble/aurukun/aurukun.bauxite.htm which shows 18 rivers "which could be designated as Wild Rivers".

I'm sure that if you were to ask the Wilderness Society if they would rather the bauxite stayed in the ground, they would agree. When I asked them a few years ago why it was not being made part of the discussions I was told the Government had said it was "not negotiable so forget it". At the time however, Noel Pearson was FOR the strip-mining, saying the Aurukun people "wanted jobs so that they could get a mortgage and buy a house, just like anyone else."

The simple fact remains that if the Aurukun people, or anyone else in a Wild Rivers area, wants to do a project that harms the wild river, they will be stopped - and a good thing too. And if the project is not harmful, it will be allowed. Since they continually assure us they do not want to harm their rivers, there should be no problem.

dave, it is good to see that you turn a blind eye to the inherent racism of the wild rivers legislation. The "wild rivers" run primarily through land which local indigenous communities are dependant on, we set a much higher bar for development in these areas then the rest of the state. Why is it that ecological sustainable development is the test for white communities but preservation is the test that indigenous communities must meet to advance their social and economic well being.
Hey lets not worry about that lets condemn these communities to third world living standards. why is it that we have a legislative regime that enables the advancement of economic interests in white communities, but those same decisions are precluded in indigenous communities, is it we don't care as a society?

This story shows just how the environmental movement is prepared to use any means to achieve their political agenda. Sacrificing the rights of indigenous Australians and consigning them to poverty. Who best knows how to develop aboriginal communities and land, white people in Sydney and Melbourne, or indigenous people living on their land?

All Australians want sustainable development, balancing jobs and family futures with protecting the planet, not just environmental lobby groups creating shady backroom preference deals.

Across in the Northern Territory communities are doing just that by creating new industries and real jobs for their people, and rather than being told what to do by the Wilderness Society activists, they have formed a partnership with Forestry Tasmania and the local newspaper reports that they are building a future for local people. Gumatj Corporation chairman Galarrwuy Yunupingu hopes a newly started timber industry in the middle of the Territory bush would kick-start an economic future for his people. see http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/08/10/73701_ntnews.html

Forestry Tasmania is usually vilified by the Wilderness Society, but perhaps this story might cause questioning of the Wilderness Society’s outrageous claims they use to raise funds to finance their $11 million budget.

More details on how the poverty cycle can be broken can also be found at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2009/08/first-milestone-in-gumatj-ft-partnership