Greg, the argument that Wild Rivers is akin to a reserve seems a little tenuous. Wild Rivers is a planning scheme, so does not affect tenure, the right to determine access to land, or who speaks for country.

Noel Pearson has claimed that Wild Rivers is a "quasi-National Park", which I assume is where part of your assumption comes from. Aside from the points raised about tenure and access, unlike a National Park, Wild Rivers does allow private infrastruture, cattle grazing, and other activities.

In addition, the comment that "Affected Indigenous communities in the declared areas were not fully informed about the impact and extent of the declaration, nor did they give their consent" appears to be conjecture when compared to the diversity of views put forward from the Aurukun community about Wild Rivers.

I would also argue that it has been difficult for communities to be "fully informed" about Wild Rivers because there is a deliberate campaign underway on Cape York by Noel Pearson and others, which claims that Wild Rivers will lead to the banning of traditional hunting and fishing, amoung other very false claims.

While the Government could vastly improve consultation for Wild Rivers (as with all Government initiatives), this is hardly cause for the claim that Wild Rivers "flies in the face of the progress that has been made in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples".

Wild Rivers explicitly recognises Native Title rights and provides for reserve of water specifically for Indigenous economic aspirations, as well as providing jobs through a wild river ranger program. It has been supported by many Indigenous groups across the Gulf of Carpentaria and on Cape York.

It is disappointing to see you adopting a similar reactionary take on Wild Rivers as Noel Pearson, without recognising these facts.

Dear CR
This is a tired old argument mate.

You continue to justify unilateral action by attacking the man i.e. Pearson, whose environmental credentials on the Cape are far supperior to either environmental groups or Q Gov.

The problem with the approach of the TWS and the other extreme "greens" (and the beaurocrats)on this whole WR farnacle is that - with the possible exception of ACF - they do not recognise the rights and interests of the Cape York Indigenous peoples in decisions affecting their traditional homelands and the importance of free, prior and informed consent.

Nor do they recognise that the Cape York peoples are not only capable of making decisions about ESD outcomes on their country but want to do so. That is why they have worked so hard and diligently to secure title to their land under the framework provided by Mabo, Wik and the NTA in the first place.

As you say some indigenous groups may be supportive of WR on the country (the vast majority are clearly not)and that is their choice but it is not a choice that should be imposed unilaterally by "greens" and Q Gov. What Greg McIntyre's argument points out is that this course of action is in contravention of the law.

You suggest Greg's position is reactionary. How extraordinary! Greg is simply interpreting the law and if the environmental groups and the Q Gov don't stop and shift approach from unilateralism to consensual ILUA negotiations, then they will be beaten in the courts and play themselves out of the game completely.

Its time to get sensible and stop defending the indefensible! If you really believe your principles then you need to come out from under the skirts of Government and political deals and defend them in the real world with real people who are actually affected.

From what people on Murray Island tell me this Greg McIntyre made quite a bit out the mabo Case. The islanders got what ? lots of division amongst themselves that's all.
I appologise if I am wrong but does anyone know how much he made or indeed what the average lawyer gets for such a case ?

Individual: you have to be kidding. The only way you can criticise McIntyre is to make a snide insinuation that he's about making money? He and many other lawyers have spent years - decades even - earning very little assisting indigenous people in their battles. Even if they do earn a quid, so what? What is your point? Mabo was successful; it changed the historical landscape for indigenous Australians. Thank God there ARE lawyers like McIntyre prepared to search for legal solutions for the advancement of aboriginal people. A lot of lawyers earn hideous amounts working for governments like the current Queensland one, trying to run legal rings around indigenous communities as they try to work out what complex legislation like Wild Rivers means for them. Suppose that's OK, then?

the most obnoxious thing about wild rivers legislation is the removal of the principle of ecological sustainable development defined below as:
1.protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local, regional, state and wider levels;
2.economic development; and
3.maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities.

This means that proposed activities in the declared area can occur if they conflict with the maintenance of the cultural wellbeing of the indigenous communities because the only principle that can be taken into account by decision makers is whether the propsed activity has an impact on the natural river system.
It is a disgrace and the environment movement should be honest and admit the whole purpose of the legislation was a marketing ploy for membership

As someone who supports both the intent of Native Title and of the Wild Rivers legislation, I have to say that I'm personally vexed by Greg McIntyre's article. He raises very valid issues concerning consultation and speaking for country, yet I wonder whether he and the other vocal critics of the legislation - notably Noel Pearson - are not captive to some extent to pro-development interests in Cape York.

While I'm not a lawyer's bootlace, my reading of the legislation is that it is consistent with virtually all traditional rights conferred by the Native Title Act, but is certainly incompatible with many commercial activities that might potentially occur in Cape York. Since I'm also acquainted with the factional aspects of Indigenous politics, I also wonder whether St Noel and his disciples aren't being manipulated by some of the big money that gets thrown around when there's the possibility of any kind of "development" proposed in FNQ.

I mean, 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?