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.