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.