Only white fella development allowed

Before I deal with the central premise it is necessary to briefly deal with the allegations of Tania Major, Indigenous Australian and anti wild rivers campaigner, that the Chinalco development was excluded from Queensland’s Wild Rivers initiative because of the lobbying efforts of Jim Elder. The statement is wrong.

For some period of time the holders of the Pechiney bauxite leases in Aurukun, Cape York, earned the wrath of successive governments for not developing the resource into a mine with a smelter and refinery.

So much so that in 2004 the Beattie Labor government repealed the special legislation that awarded the mining lease. During 2005 the Wild Rivers legislation was being developed and there was considerable concern that this would be a huge embarrassment if it prevented the Aurukun resource from being developed. That is the reason the Wild Rivers legislation specifically excluded the Aurukun development: the lease was put out to tender and awarded in a competitive bid after the Wild Rivers legislation was enacted, and thus before Chinalco and any lobbyist firms were involved.

Before we deal with the specifics of the impact of the Wild Rivers legislation it is useful to take a quick snapshot of key demographical statistics for our Indigenous people.

All the statistics quoted below come from ABS catalogue number 4704.0.

The unemployment rate for Indigenous Australians is 16 per cent compared with 5 per cent for non-Indigenous Australians; home ownership is 34 per cent compared with 69 per cent; median weekly income for Indigenous Australians is 56 per cent of that for non-Indigenous Australians; life expectancy for males is 59 compared with 77, for females it is 65 compared to 82; 75 per cent of males die before the age of 65 compared with 26 per cent, 65 per cent of females die before the age of 65 compared to 16 per cent; male infant deaths are 6.4 per cent compared to 0.9 per cent and female infant deaths are 5.7 per cent compared to 0.8 per cent.

To put this in context, 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.

To support the welfare of Indigenous people economic activity must be brought to the communities: the biggest impediment is the lack of capital accumulation available for economic ventures.

For wide ranging improvements external capital needs to be invested into economic activity within or for Indigenous communities. The nature of the market means opportunities are limited and investments will be marginal at best in terms of potential returns to the external holders of the capital.

The most likely source of capital is from natural resource projects injecting capital via Indigenous Land Use Agreements; second is joint venture projects for agribusiness activity; and finally ecotourism ventures.

Any increased regulatory uncertainty or compliance costs act as huge barriers and disincentives for external private entities investing or entering into joint economic ventures with Indigenous communities.

The Wild Rivers legislation is a significant barrier to investment certainty, thus reducing the capacity of ending the entrenched poverty in Indigenous communities in the Cape.

To demonstrate this point we need to look at the legislative defined purpose of the Wild Rivers legislation, which is as follows:

• providing for the regulation of particular activities and taking of natural resources in a wild river and its catchment to preserve the wild river’s natural values;
• having a precautionary approach to minimise adverse effects on known natural values and reduce the possibility of adversely affecting poorly understood ecological functions;
• treating a wild river and its catchment as a single entity, linking the condition of the river to the health of the catchment;
• considering the effect of individual activities and taking of natural resources on a wild river’s natural values;
• considering the cumulative effect of activities and taking of natural resources affecting a wild river area when further activities or taking are proposed;
• if a wild river crosses a state border - working with the other state to encourage preservation of the wild river’s natural values in the other state.

Contrast this with the legislative defined purpose of the Integrated Planning Act which regulates all other development activity throughout the state. The purpose of this Act is to seek to achieve ecological sustainability by:

1. co-ordinating and integrating planning at the local, regional and state levels;
2. managing the process by which development occurs; and
3. managing the effects of development on the environment (including managing the use of premises).

With ecological sustainability defined as a balance that integrates:

1. protection of ecological processes and natural systems at local, regional, state and wider levels;
2. economic development; and
3. maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities.

Quite simply development activity in Wild Rivers areas are assessed under a whole new paradigm in comparison to development activity anywhere else in the state.

In the wild rivers legislation the central paradigm is preservation of the river system, elsewhere it is about ecological sustainability. This means it does not matter if a proposed project in a wild rivers area could alleviate poverty among Indigenous communities because that will not be a factor in assessing whether the project can proceed. Every decision must be confined to preserving the river system, and because the legislation calls up the precautionary principle when the impacts are uncertain, decision makers are legislative bound to refuse the application.

Contrast that with the guiding principles of the Integrated Planning Act which requires decision makers to balance protection of ecological processes and systems, economic development and maintenance of the cultural, economic, physical and social wellbeing of people and communities.

That is why the Aurukun alumina resources were specifically excluded, the message sent very clearly to the Cape is that there are special rules for “white fella” development and restrictions for “black fella” development.

For Indigenous Australians, the Mabo and Wik decisions were the equivalent of the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Wild Rivers legislation is equivalent to the battle of Wounded Knee.

I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard.

A people's dream died there. It was a beautiful dream ... the nation's hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead. Black Elk

John Howard refused to apologise to Indigenous Australians for their past brutal treatment and virtual enslavery by European settlement.

Who in the future will be called on to apologise for our generation’s decision to entrench Indigenous poverty?