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.