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?

Dear CJ

The one thing u clearly aren't acquainted with is the paucity of big development of any kind on Cape York! Its got the lowest grazing pressure of any part of Australia, the last mine that started there was more than 40 years ago and the largest sawmill is a back yard job in Cooktown. Before u start sniping with rather tragic conspiracy theories about who is supporting who and playing the man, u might get out of your comfortable living room, go there and work out that what WR puts a break on (by making it significantly more difficult and expensive) is the indigenous peoples who own the land who are trying to get off welfare by starting small businesses...cut flowers, passion fruit....and getting on with their lives on their own land as u do on urs and I do on mine. Maybe they dont all want to be Park Rangers because thats where most of the support is coming from right now! If WR happened in ur suburban backyard u would be screaming blue murder about ur property rights being trampled on. Its actually about a fair go for all Australians and the law is an ass if it does not seek to protect that principle!

PW2,
Mabo a success ? thank you for telling us. I'll tell that to the many indigenous people who aren't aware of that yet, it'll change everything. I'm sure it'll all be good now that you have told us.

GMac, hear, hear.
I fought the introduction of the Wild Rivers Legislation within Government and lost. For that I apologise to the indigenous people of Queensland. This legislation will condemn indigenous people of the Cape to a perpetual cycle of poverty and misery.
One wonders why we can have international outrage over a tacky 3 minute skit on Redfaces but as a society turn a blind eye to measures that perpetuate institutional racism and may I be bold to call it ethnic cleansing.

Hi GMac. You're quite correct of course - I don't know Cape York very well, having only been there once about 20 years ago. However, I don't live in the suburbs, but in rural southern Queensland. To the west of where I live the Paroo River was, as I recall, the first river declared under Wild Rivers provisions - which was supported by the Aboriginal communities in the affected areas.

You claim that the Wild Rivers legislation will stifle small-scale Aboriginal enterprises like horticulture and grazing, but I can't see anything in the legislation that supports such a claim. The reason I mentioned Noel Pearson is that this is exactly the line that he's been pushing in the media in recent months, and it's hard to imagine that his links with right-wing think tanks and mining companies haven't influenced his prominence in the debate.

What I do hear about - like on ABC radio this morning - is that mining companies are seeking to expand into new areas on Cape York, and I've yet to see a large sacale mine anywhere that hasn't affected the environment in a profoundly negative way. And as I said, I can't think of too many examples of Aboriginal communities benefiting from such development anywhere in Australia.

Inappropriate development - including agriculture and mining - has stuffed too much of the Australian environment already, which is why I generally support the Wild Rivers legislation. When it comes to salvaging what little is left of relatively pristine Australian waterways, I think that environmental interests outweigh the dubious potential benefits to developers and supposedly to Indigenous people.

While I support Native Title rights, I don't think that the intent of the NTA was to provide a vehicle whereby local communities are manipulated by large-scale developers in order to circumvent belated environmental protection legislation. There is nothing 'traditional' about a bauxite or rutile mine.

Welcome to the real world you blokes. What ever made you think that your native title would be any more meaningful than the freehold title, that many of us have mortgaged our soles to acquire.

For years we've been unable to protect our homes from things such as dangerous trees, all the way to bushfires. We have had to accept instruction from some council lackey, controlling our lives, at least it's a premier who has screwed you lot.

Perhaps you should not have been quite so strong in supporting the greenies, in causing land holders grief, in the past. Now you get the chance to reap what you have sewn, or at least helped with.

Welcome to equality.

Now might be time to join us, in fighting the all enveloping green slime, that's choking the life out of all productive country enterprise, but beware it's lonely over here.

CJ Morgan,
Interesting that you mention the environmental degradation caused by large scale mining projects when the two exemptions under the Wild Rivers scheme are the Aurukun Project and the PNG Pipeline.

GMac is correct in asserting that the real problem with the Wild Rivers legislation is that it prohibits or severely hinders small scale economic development opportunities, even where these activities are consistent with the objects of the Wild Rivers legislation.

For a good explanation of how the wild rivers legislation affects small scale economic development opportunities, read Meg McLoughlin and Melissa Sinclair's article: ‘Wild Rivers, Conversation and Indigenous Rights: An Impossible Balance?’ in July/ August 2009, Indigenous Law Bulletin Vol 7, Iss 13.
There is significant indigenous interest around the Cape in establishing a 'culture-based economy', whereby communities generate income from activities such as the cultivation and trade of wild animals (e.g. mud-crabbing, the harvesting of crocodile eggs etc), harvesting native plants for art and craft work, setting up market gardens and greenhouse gas abatement projects (strategic burning to create firebreaks before the bushfire season). These activities have been shown to be environmentally sustainable and financially rewarding, as well as contributing to indigenous self determination (by respecting the right of traditional owners to have a say in how their land is used and developed).

However, in a report on the three most recent wild river declarations, the Australian Human Rights Commission expressed concern about the viability of establishing an economy based on natural and cultural resources in areas subject to a wild river declaration.

The Queensland Minister for Natural Resources, Stephen Robertson, set the bar extremely high for developments which would be allowed within wild river areas, saying that development proposals should “have minimal or no impact on those river systems”. (see Siobhan Barry’s article in ABC News Online, 6 April 2009). Even though market gardens appear to meet this onerous requirement, they are prohibited in high protection areas. Meanwhile the Aurukun Project continues to have a very significant impact on wild river systems. The operation of the wild rivers legislation thus seems to amount to environmental racism.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi Rainier - no offence taken (nor indeed intended). I expected that we'd be in disagreement on this issue, however I'm genuinely interested in finding out why it is that the Wild Rivers declarations are such an issue among the Aboriginal elite on Cape York.

Perhaps you could describe how Aboriginal people have benefited from development on Cape York?

I agree that consultation between the Qld government and traditional owners over the legislation appears to have been inadequate, but that's standard operating procedure for the ALP government and is by no means restricted to Aboriginal landowners. For example, the ban on broadscale land clearing in Qld is hugely unpopular with predominantly non-Aboriginal landowners, who claim that it restricts potential development of their land.

That in itself doesn't mean the legislation is bad - indeed, I supported it for much the same reason as I support the Wild Rivers legislation. As Australians, we simply can't continue to engage in the kinds of activities that have ruined much of our natural environment.

It seems to me that the opposition to Wild Rivers declarations on Cape York is being driven by those who want traditional owners to be able to engage in much the same kind of economic activities by which non-Indigenous farmers, miners, foresters and fishers have stuffed the rest of the country.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Dear CJ

The only way to convince urself that u are wrong is to go and have a look.

All the critical comments in this dialogue and generally refer to the figures whose heads are above the parapet. You do it again by referring to the "elites".

This is not an argument for the or primarily created by the "elites". This one comes from the belly of the beast and is so obvious in human terms that we should all be ashamed we missed it.

It is a seering anger from communities all across the Cape which continues to grow as they understand that what has been delivered back to them by Mabo and Wik and the NTA to run and manage is being taken away by a dumb Government and ill considered (in the main unintended) green racism.

And the locals...they get to be park rangers! Thx. If u dont believe that u should go and have a look...it should be mandatory for every whitefella.

It is not an intellectual discussion.

It is not even an argument of degree.

It is not actually an environmental argument if u understood the miniscule environmental risk of developments proposed, probable, possible or likely on Cape York.

It is a plain common garden Aussie issue of a FAIR GO.

Properly understood, it is an issue for all Australians.

Properly understood, it is an opportunity for all of us to work together to create a meaningful framework for sustainable development which recognises the primacy of the blackfellas to a small part of the country which was once all theirs. As usual they are not trying to keep the rest of us out or invite the environmental vandals in.

The peoples of the Cape just need a fair suck of the savaloy!

Give the so called "elites" a break. Thank Christ there are those like the Pearsons and many many other leaders on Cape York who are seeking to navigate between an elephant and a mouse and make sense of this for all.

Dear CJ - its Sunday and i'm not finished.

Those that can elevate the real issues of indigenous Australians into a mainstream forum for debate - like this one - need our support morally and financially to have the issue properly considered and resolved. Greg McIntyre's legal advice is but a part albeit important in a better Australia for all of us.

Get of ur computer and go see for urself. This is a human issue with a human resolution. GET off the fence on this one as its a very unhappy place to be!

Hi GMac - thanks for your comments.

<< The only way to convince urself that u are wrong is to go and have a look. >>

Unfortunately, that's neither possible nor practical for me, particularly at this time of the year. It'd be a bit like me saying that the only way you can appreciate the environmental damage caused by development in the Murray-Darling is to come and have a look.

What I've asked is for someone to provide examples of how such development that currently exists on Cape York has benefited traditional owners. Further, none of the critics of the Wild Rivers declarations has provided a single example of an actual proposed sustainable development that is being prevented by the declarations.

I've been a strong supporter of Native Title since before the Mabo decision, but my layman's understanding of the legislation is that it was never intended to confer upon traditional owners a form of tenure that is exempt from the kinds of regulation - such as environmental protection legislation like Wild Rivers - by the State to which all other forms of land title are subject.

<< It is not actually an environmental argument if u understood the miniscule environmental risk of developments proposed, probable, possible or likely on Cape York. >>

It would be very helpful to this debate if someone could provide some details of these "proposed, probable, possible or likely" developments on Cape York, as opposed to citing examples that have been shown in this thread to be outside the country affected by Wild Rivers legislation.

I appreciate that this is an emotional issue for many who oppose the declarations, but I think it would advance the understanding of sympathetic environmentalists like me if the debate could be conducted with more facts and less spin.