|
 |
The Archer Basin Wild River.
(CREDIT: Qld Department of Environment and Resource Management) |
NEWS FEATURE: Where the wild things are
Issue 193 - 21 Jan 2010
ISSUE 193, January 21, 2010: The debate over the controversial Wild Rivers legislation in Queensland has heated up again. MADELAINE SEALEY brings you a comprehensive guide to the battle that shows no sign of slowing.
What is the Wild Rivers legislation?
The Wild Rivers Act (2005) was originally enacted in Queensland's state parliament in an effort to protect "pristine" river systems in Far North Queensland. The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management says the aim of the legislation is to ensure the preservation of the rivers' natural heritage for "the benefit of current and future generations".
What is the purpose of the Act?
Any proposed developments or activities in catchment areas that are declared "wild rivers" are subject to approval and must meet strict requirements under the 2005 Act and the Wild Rivers Declarations.
Development activities such as residential, commercial and industrial development are all subject to the code, as are any mining activities, works which interfere with the water flow of the river systems and any activity that will impact on the natural environment and natural resources.
River systems declared "wild" under the Act include Fraser, Gregory Hinchinbrook, Morning Inlet, Settlement and Staaten in 2007, and most recently in 2009, rivers in the Cape Peninsula region.
These include the Archer Basin, Lockhart Basin and Stewart Basin. It's these most recent additions to the Wild Rivers legislation that has sparked public debate over the impact on Indigenous self-determination and the role of environmental protection over the rights of Aboriginal peoples.
What support is there for Wild Rivers in the Cape?
Supporters of the Wild Rivers legislation argue that overturning the laws will open up the region to activities such as strip-mining, and allow environmentally destructive developments such as dams and intensive irrigation systems.
This will have an impact on the regions' "pristine rivers" and natural environment, something on which the current eco-tourism industry is reliant.
The Australian Green's Queensland faction has criticised Tony Abbott's attempts to reverse the legislation. Spokesperson Larissa Waters has argued that any such move will "enable sand mining in the Aurukun Wetlands and strip mining for bauxite across the Cape".
Ms Waters argues that while the legislation prevents environmentally destructive proposals such as "in-stream mines and dams" it doesn't prevent Indigenous cultural activities such as hunting nor does it stop "fishing, grazing or building of community infrastructure or override native title rights".
Her concerns have been echoed by the Wilderness Society, which has so far played a substantial role in blocking any reversal of the legislation.
The society's Queensland Campaign Manager, Tim Seelig, criticised suggestions by Mr Abbott and camps opposed to the legislation last week who claim Wild Rivers impedes Indigenous economic opportunities.
Writing for www.crikey.com.au last week, Dr Seelig noted that the legislation amendments had involved consultations with prominent Indigenous leaders such as Noel Pearson and other Indigenous groups. He rejected accusations that Aboriginal people have been shut out of the decision-making and consultation processes.
Dr Seelig also said that the Wild Rivers laws "support cultural practices and smaller-scale uses such as eco-tourism infrastructure, cattle grazing and fishing", while setting a minimum standard for environmental protections and practical standards for sustainable economic activity.
He noted that Native Title rights have been "explicitly protected" and "special water reserves specifically for Indigenous economic development" are factored into the current legislation.
Why is Tony Abbott involved?
The federal opposition leader argues that the Wild Rivers Act is preventing Aboriginal people from progressing economically, and has proposed a reversal of the Queensland legislation as a way to lift Indigenous communities out of poverty in the North Queensland region.
His attempt to overturn the Queensland state law has been largely influenced by Noel Pearson from the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. The institute has labelled the Queensland government's inclusion of the Stewart, Lockhart and Archers rivers as an infringement on Indigenous rights.
In April last year, the institute accused the Bligh government of "failing to consider Indigenous cultural heritage".
Director of the institute, Noel Pearson has welcomed Mr Abbott's proposed bill after several years of campaigning against the laws.
Mr Pearson has labelled the Wild Rivers legislation "racist in practice", citing its regulation of land owned by the region's "impoverished Indigenous communities" as the result of "sleazy deals" with the Wilderness Society.
He told The Australian newspaper on Saturday: "We've spent 10 years securing the rights of Aboriginal people and just as we are starting to see the fruits of our work, we have to fight the battle again ... We have to preserve the ability of these communities to develop economic enterprises in the future. There's no road out of poverty without an economic base."
Mr Pearson has been joined by Indigenous academic Marcia Langton, who wrote in April last year in The Australian, that the legislation allowed the Queensland government to effectively play "with thousands of people's lives by remote control".
She heavily criticised the endorsement and support of the legislation from Wik-Waya traditional owner, Gina Castelain, who sees the Wild Rivers Act as a way "to create jobs" while protecting the natural environment.
The Chairman of the Cape York Land Council Michael Ross has also said that the move to declare the Cape's rivers as "wild", shows a "deep lack or respect towards the traditional owners". He said that future endeavours for conservation and land use in the region showed a "severe lack of judgement" by the Queensland government.
What are the implications?
Professor Jon Altman, Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University, said earlier this week there was no evidence to suggest that benefits for Aboriginal people "will arrive from overturning the legislation", noting there was an absence of any substantial plans from critics of the legislation demonstrating major economic benefits to the Indigenous communities if the laws are overturned.
Prof Altman highlighted the environmental threats the "pristine rivers" that are now under the Wild Rivers legislation faced.
He noted that rivers are not "pristine" due to human habitation and activity, and do face environmental degradation if they are not protected.
Prof Altman said that while he understood Mr Pearson's assertions about Aboriginal people having a right to manage their land - be it for commercial or other purposes - there were still groups in the region worried about conservation and environmental protection.
In his view, what the institute is essentially arguing for is that "Aboriginal people should have commercial rights" (an aspect of the Native Title agreement that was not negotiated at its creation).
According to Prof Altman, the Wild Rivers legislation protects the cultural rights of Aboriginal people and ensures Aboriginal people have access to the region's resources, as outlined by the Native Title agreement that has been protected and upheld in the Queensland legislation.
The Wild Rivers debate has "many layers of politics" and "we are hearing a highly abstract principle about rights lacking in any practical proposals with or without the Wild Rivers legislation," Prof Altman said. "There is a need for a diverse strategy for the Cape and the best (approach) may be an environmentally sustainable approach."
Aboriginal self-determination aside, Mr Abbott has been accused of utilising the Wild Rivers debate as a political tool.
Queensland's Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson said last week that Abbott's proposed bill was an attempt to win back the north Queensland seat of Leichhardt at the next federal election.
He attributed Mr Abbott's new found stance and commitment to addressing Indigenous disadvantage to a close political and personal relationship he has with Mr Pearson.
Wayne Errington, a lecturer in political science at the Australian National University said on Tuesday that Abbott's stance "will unite the differences in the conservative parties", although it is questionable whether it would win an election.
Dr Errington noted the division over the issue from the left - between the Australian Greens and sections of the ALP - while the conservative parties were in agreeance on the issue.
Dr Errington said that it was not unusual for "Liberal leaders to go backwards on Liberal decisions" and he saw Abbott's move as the result of his close relationship with Mr Pearson, not necessarily a political ploy as some critics have dubbed it.
Dr Errington did not believe the bill would pass next month, but said that where Indigenous affairs or corporate power are concerned, the Commonwealth could easily overturn state law and ignore state sovereignty. However, the ALP "won't do it in the short term".
 
|
|