Excellent to get further background to the debate. The reactionary right cheer squad has been quick to support Noel Pearson in what is a very deceptive campaign to prevent this river protection initiative.

I find it particularly interesting that the Carpentaria Land Council and Traditional Owners in the Gulf country supported Wild Rivers and lobbied with the Wilderness Society. This seriously questions the claim that all Indigenous people are outraged by Wild Rivers, and that they feel their native title rights have been impinged. I assume they understood the importance of preventing big developers stuffing up their rivers!

Indigenous people have many different opinions, they are human. Can always find one to back up your argument.

We keep taking the land they have kept pristine for our own purpose whether it is to degrade or to make up for our degradation. Still trying to run the show.

TheMissus, how does Wild Rivers take land away when it is simply a planning scheme? It's clear it in fact protects the rivers from nasty development, which is probably why many Indigenous people support it (including the Carpentaria Land Council as explained in the article).

Whether it's a multinational mining company, big irrigation developers, or an Indigenous business, it just makes sense to ensure NOBODY can destroy a river system for their own benefit and at the expense of many more.

Messers Walker etal are as always, interested in their interpretation of how things should be. Perhaps when he agrees to give up the right to manage his Apartment in the middle of Sydney to Noel, Noel will agree to let him determine how others should live on their land.

The Wilderness Society etc are as greedy as any developer he criticises, hoping to use the resources of others, to have an area reflect how they want things to be. Wearing cotton shirts, with the cotton sourced from another country, handing flyers out protesting Pulp Mills on paper made overseas, exported exploitation is all the rage.

Perhaps Mr Pearson and others have seen the insidious impact that exclusion from being able to engage "traditionally" (as much as that means these days) with the land has had on white communities and their people that had an indelible tie to the land and are afraid the misplaced paternalism of groups like the Wilderness Society enforcing their will on others will have a similar trickle down deleterious effect.

No matter what promises Politicians make about nasty legislation like this, what it means in reality, on the ground, when Mr Walker is back in Sydney is, exclude others and let me control it.

"Free of dams, weirs, polluting irrigation schemes and industrial development, the natural and cultural values of these rivers remain largely intact."
Dear Clown
The reason there are no "dams, weirs, polluting irrigation schemes and industrial development" is because largely there is no commercial return from such activities in the Cape.
But with no "polluting irrigation schemes" in Australia where do you think most of your food comes from? Rain grown agriculture?
"Through advocacy from the Wilderness Society, the Queensland government has initiated a program to employ 100 Indigenous rangers to manage ongoing threats to wild rivers such as invasive weeds and feral animals."
How many have been employed and what has this to do with Wild Rivers?

Dear Glen and Readers

The difference and dispute you describe in this article does not truly seem to be a dispute about the preferred 'end point' describe (healthy river systems).. but rather a dispute about the means by which that end point is being reached.

The position as put in the Australian and by Aboriginal protesters addressing public forums is more sophisticated, more reasonable (and more accurate) than your article makes out.

I have heard young protesters (akin to the kind of people who might otherwise get involved in the Wilderness society campaign) stand up and argue it is the the imposed regulation that comes with the Wild Rivers Act they are opposed to .. being regulation imposed from above in a way that doest not necessarily prohibit Aboriginal use of the river ways .. but, rather:

i. wraps Aboriginal future livelihoods, hopes and future aspirations in crudely insensitive layers of red tape (leaving some Aboriginal peoples hopes and futures at the mercy of distant bureaucrats)

ii. shifts the real power to manage and control future use of these vast catchments away from the locally indigenous peoples who live there .. into the hands of distant detached bureaucrats and officials many hundreds of kilometers away

iii. pays for itself by making all who may wish to seek approval to build toilet blocks etc etc .. to somehow pay transaction costs that are absolutely prohibitive to those most in poverty (ironically favoring those who may be backed by big corporations/businesses with the resources, know how and money to get through the red tape.

The story that is being presented by the local Aboriginal "Give Us a Go campaign" is very different to the one presented in this article .. being a call that, in the end, would seem to simply insist on a better process for achieving a shared end .

Sincerely

Bruceanthro

Bruce,

Unfortunately the position put forward by Noel Pearson and others from the 'Give Us a Go' campaign has absolutely been characterised by deliberate misinformation (eg the list at www.giveusabreak.org.au) and aggressive slander towards conservationists. This is very plain to see.

To address the points you raise:

i) Red tape: In a recent Triple J story you have raised concerns over the development of your family's outstation, which is in fact barely impacted by Wild Rivers. Outstation developments can all occur in a High Preservation Area, there is no Ministerial process as you have suggested. Wild Rivers slots into the existing planning process - a development application is made, and is assessed by the state government against a range of regulations. There is no real additional step above the normal process that everyone in Queensland has to follow.

ii) Indigenous management: Wild Rivers sets broad parameters for big development in rivers and wetlands via a planning framework - I don't believe that it takes away the rights of people to manage country, and it certainly does not affect tenure. We have been vocal advocates of government support for local people to look after their rivers, which is why we lobbied for the Indigenous Wild River Ranger program (20 now employed), among other mechanisms (such as Indigenous Protected Areas), to ensure Indigenous control over management of country.

iii) Transaction costs: I'm not sure where you got this idea from. If you can demonstrate how building a toilet block incurs a big cost for lodging an application, please let me know. As I say, the development process for Wild Rivers is rolled into the Queensland-wide process that everyone adheres to when they want to build something.

The point here is that calm discussion about the reality of Wild Rivers has been seriously muddied by the Pearson-led anti-Wild Rivers campaign. I would suggest a better process is not just in the hands of government, but also in the hands of those who continue to wage a war of misinformation on this issue.

Many thanks to Glenn Walker for this article. It provides a nice balance to the article by Greg McIntyre published at OLO a couple of weeks ago [ http://tiny.cc/sa3vr ]. As I said on that thread, this is an issue that vexes me because I'm both a strong supporter of Native Title rights and of the natural environment.

I really can't see how Wild Rivers proclamations are inconsistent with the exercise of Native Title rights, unless the interpretation of those rights is extended to somehow form the cultural basis for the establishment of the same kinds of activities by which non-Indigenous Australians have wreaked havoc on most of the other river systems in Australia. As I recall, that was certainly not the intention of those who fought for the Mabo and Wik decisions and framed the Native Title legislation.

The argument that there was insufficient consultation by the Qld government before enacting the Wild Rivers legislation is a valid one, but that would probably apply to every piece of controversial legislation ever enacted in Australia.

It's interesting that the Wild Rivers legislation was supported by the Carpentaria Land Council, but is now being vehemently opposed by the Cape York Land Council and Noel Pearson's new lobby group, who have the support of people like Peter Holmes a Court, not to mention an obvious campaign in the Murdoch media.

As I said in the previous discussion on this topic, it would be very helpful to this debate if someone could provide some details of any probable, possible or likely developments proposed by Traditional Owners on Cape York that will be prevented by Wild Rivers proclamations. I asked this question on the previous thread on this issue, but ultimately nobody answered.

Glenn Walker - I wouldn't be too bothered by blairbar's gratuitous insult. In his comments at OLO he's made it plain that he is equally antipathetic to both Indigenous rights and the environment.

Glen Walker your roundup last paragraph states that "The point here is that calm discussion about the reality of Wild Rivers has been seriously muddied by the Pearson-led anti-Wild Rivers campaign."

Your calm discussion was more than likely conducted before consultation, between yourselves and government, to frame the outcomes before any discussion was entered in to.

Secondly, you can't blame Noel Pearson, or any one else for your problems, given the lengths your organization and other green NGO's have gone to in the past, where falsifying evidence,trans-locating "putting" of species or inflating counts to gain your desired policy and planning outcomes is used to corrupt reporting and therefore achieve green only outcomes, where the owners never gain any benefit, on the contrary the complete opposite (you can refer to planning and environment court decisions & evidence if you like)

In others eyes Glen, you may be just another blow in and forget your handy work conveniently on you way up the consensus ladder.
There is no ladder to climb north of your outlook except by planning by stealth which does not deliver on the ground truths and local desires. And frankly Glen, as one who has worked at a local government level on planning approvals you organization and the greens in general can't be trusted any more.

"Glenn Walker - I wouldn't be too bothered by blairbar's gratuitous insult. In his comments at OLO he's made it plain that he is equally antipathetic to both Indigenous rights and the environment."
I an sure Glen took notice of your gratuitous advice. He must have been trembling in his boots at my mild comments. And as for "clown" as an insulting term CJ it wouldn't make your list of 100 of CJ's abusive best.
"an·tip·a·thet·ic (n-tp-thtk) also an·tip·a·thet·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
a. Having or showing a strong aversion or repugnance: antipathetic to new ideas.
b. Opposed in nature or character; antagonistic: antipathetic factions within the party."
CJ you continually confuse me with other blogsters who don't share your views and who receive your normal abusive bucketing. I certainly don't have a strong aversion to Native Title. In fact I have never commented on it. And as for the environment I consider humans are a part of the environment and their interests are paramount. There are human winners and losers in all legislation and regulations that impact on our physical environments. All views should be considered.

i will say it again the problem with the wild rivers legislation is that it is underpinned by the preservation principle rather than ecologically sustainable development. the "wild rivers" legislation affects primarily indigenous development because of geography. when it was going to affect a non-indigenous development that project was specifically excluded by the legislation. indigenous communities suffer from poverty, reduced life expectancy partly due to the prohibitive costs of access to fresh foods (fruit and vegetables). wild rivers legislation effectively denies the opportunity for broad acre farming that could supply the whole of the cape plus provide employment opportunities. maybe the intellegentsia should stop worrying about 2 minute skits on hey hey and worry about being party to institutional genocide

I don't think that it furthers this debate much to invoke "institutional genocide", which seems to be a rather hysterical response to the Wild Rivers legislation and declarations. Slasher's post above is also indicative of why the proclamations are necessary - if "broad acre farming" is what opponents to the declarations have in mind. Indeed, broad acre farming is one of the major reasons for the destruction of other river ystems, notably the Murray-Darling.

I agree that the exemption for the bauxite mine sucks, although I'm quite certain it was done for commercial expediency by the Beattie government, rather than any preference for non-Indigenous development. Indeed, I'd support a campaign to have the exemption rescinded.

It's nice to see that blairbar has learned something from his participation in the discussion - despite his disingenuous protestations. I said that he has shown himself to be antipathetic to Indigenous rights, not Native Title, and he clearly has little sympathy for the environment.

Yes CJ my statement should have been "I certainly don't have a strong aversion to indigenous rights. In fact I have never commented on the subject."
I don't have any sympathy for the physical environment. I am only interested in human welfare. I have yet to meet a talking fish or a talking tree.
"Slasher's post above is also indicative of why the proclamations are necessary - if "broad acre farming" is what opponents to the declarations have in mind"
The scope for further broad-acre farming in the Cape is largely non-existent; land suitable for broad-acre farming eg Lakeland Downs went years ago. Opportunity still exists for some small-scale intensive agriculture eg vegetable and fruit production but it is a challenging task with more failures than successes over the years. The critics of the legislation feel that this opportunity for small-scale intensive agriculture is being negatively affected.

blairbar, thank you for clarifying my thoughts for me in terms of terminology broad acre farming, so we do not get into a debate about semantics my point is the production of fresh fruit and vegetables to enable indigenous communities to tackle in a meaningful way issues of diabetes which is a common theme to differing health stds between indigenous communities.
to cj morgan hide behind your rose tinted glasses, the failure across the board to address appropriate indigenous policy is nothing short of institutional genocide. confronting facts not hiding from them is necessary before we find the solutions. Preservation based legislation as opposed to ecologically sustainable development based legislation scares away the necessary capital investment to tackle inequality head on.

Slasher, there's somewhat more than a semantic difference between "broad acre farming" (your term) and community level market gardens - certainly in terms of ecological sustainability. Your point about diet in Indigenous communities is valid, and I've often wondered why communities haven't worked together or individually before now to meet an obvious need among the people that comprise them.

Wild Rivers declarations aren't the problem for the Indigenous people of Cape York. Anybody who thinks that the kind of development constrained by Wild Rivers declarations is ecologically sustainable is having themselves on, or has been sucked in.

Slasher, I see lots of loose talk and slogans coming from you, but I'd like to see some sort of detail about all these wonderful developments that are being stymied by Wild Rivers declarations. You mentioned "broad acre farming", which would of course be incompatible (not to mention unsustainable), but you now seem to be talking about smaller scale market gardens... or something.

Do bauxite or rutile mines fit your version of sustainability?

I'm away for a few days. I'll reply to any responses when I get back.

cj morgan, you have never even attempted to answer my central criticism of the wild rivers legislation and try and now divert the argument. wild rivers legislation has a heavy impact on indigenous lands/development. the legislation is underpinned by the preservation principle not trying to achieve ecologically sustainable development as is the case throughout the rest of the state.

any broad acre farming/intensive market gardening will not be assessed on the grounds of ecological sustainable development.

there is a huge difference is the environmental standard that us whities have to comply with as opposed to what our indigenous brothers and sisters have to meet.
it scares investment away. these communities do not have internal capital available to bring them out of third world living std, to do so external capital is required. that external capital is driven away by the higher environment regulation. hence institutional genocide.

both Eritrea and Ghana have a higher life expectancy for males than Indigenous Australia. The unemployment among Indigenous Australians is comparable to the unemployment rates in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Botswana and Serbia.
those are the facts and the wild rivers legislation hinders attempts to change that so it contributes to institutional genocide.

The Wilderness Society is not a pro-environment group, regardless of what they might say. They are simply anti-development. The Wild Rivers legislation will severely restrict the ability of Indigenous people to develop their land and improve their economic and social position in Queensland. This is exactly what the Society hopes will happen; they have no desire to see Indigenous or any other people benefit from the development of land. Perversely, by keeping Indigenous people in their currently depressed economic and social state, they hope that there will be more dependency by these people on government hand-outs, thus making them more likely to vote for whichever political party then offers them more money (traditionally Labor).
Noel Pearson is correct: we have to break the current dependency on sit-down money being handed over virtually without conditions to Indigenous people. The best way of doing this is to give them the ability to economically develop their land, something the Wild Rivers legislation is designed not to allow.