Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Only white fella development allowed

By Ken McKay - posted Monday, 10 August 2009


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:

Advertisement
  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.

Advertisement

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?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ken McKay is a former Queensland Ministerial Policy Adviser now working in the Queensland Union movement. The views expressed in this article are his views and do not represent the views of past or current employers.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ken McKay

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ken McKay
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy