The Noel Pearson-Tania Major anti-Wild Rivers campaign on Cape York has just reached new depths, but at least the tactics and motivations are becoming more transparent.
Yesterday The Wilderness Society was sent the flyer below, being distributed throughout the communities of Cape York by the Pearson-Major campaign. It makes the highly deceptive and ridiculous claim that the Wild Rivers legislation will lead to the banning of traditional hunting and fishing, and is akin to national parks:
So that we are all clear on the Wild Rivers Act, it does not prevent most economic activities or development opportunities. What it does aim to prevent is destructive development, such as mega-dams, strip mining, and intensive irrigation, in sensitive riverine and wetland areas. Native title rights are protected under the legislation, and unlike national parks, tourism lodges, other buildings, grazing and other activities can still occur.
Submerged in all the recent disinformation and distortions, is the clear fact that there appears to be little disagreement on the Cape itself about the desirability of protecting the region’s rivers and world heritage values. Noel Pearson’s ‘reverse precautionary principle’ that there are no development plans now but there may be in decades to come, so we’d better not protect the rivers, is positively bizarre!
Meanwhile, Gerhard Pearson actually joined The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation, in seeking support for World Heritage policy and funding commitments from the Queensland Government earlier this year. Even Tania Major had to admit Traditional Owner support for river protection in a recent Cairns Post interview, although this has not prevented her from seeking to derail various conservation initiatives on Cape York.
So what is this “debate” really about? Greased with an apparent obsession with “latte consumption by urban greenies”, it is now quite apparent that this is an old-fashioned ideological battle run by conservative, anti-green, pro-big business and right wing political interests against the socially progressive environment movement.
Noel Pearson’s social justice and land rights activist days have long been replaced by deeply conservative views on social welfare, education and personal morality, and his alignment with the Howard Government and the Liberal Party is abundantly clear. Let’s not forget he was the only Indigenous person consulted on the NT Intervention, and has pushed through contentious welfare programs in Queensland without seeking consent from the affected communities. He also recently formed an alliance with the deeply conservative politics and anti-environment lobby group Property Rights Australia.
The Pearson-Major anti-Wild Rivers “fear and smear” campaign is only designed to scare Cape York communities into opposing Wild Rivers protection, and smear The Wilderness Society and other environmentalists in the process.
However, attempts to paint resistance to conservation initiatives on Cape York as a “green vs black” contest will fail because we know of many Traditional Owners from Cape York and other spectators — Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike — who understand the need to protect the extraordinary natural and cultural values of the region at the same time as providing sustainable indigenous economic and employment opportunities.
Ex PM Howard has never been called to account for his breach of the 1996 election promise to provide $40M in implementation funds for the Cape York Land Use Agreement between peak green groups (eg TWS, ACF), Traditional Owners of Cape York, and the Cattleman’s union.
I seem to recall the late and great communicator Rick Farley helped in brokering that deal (?). Actually yes, according to a quick google.
Peter Garrett previously a non aligned greenie was at a national conference in Sydney around 1997 as an observer where this CYLUA was presented, and not as a ‘what do you think’ to the national green movement. More like, that’s the deal duly thrashed out, ready or not. There were concerns about cattle etc but the green movement to their credit copped it sweet.
In my view Tania Major and Noel Pearson could do alot of good raising that moral and policy deficit of the previous govt given that broken election promise has resulted in say 13 years of lost economic momentum on the Cape. With a serious human toll as a result. Why protect the ideology of 1950ies Man now? What about climate change threats to traditional lands?
And Ms Major (on penultimate Q & A), you talk with passion and intellect but you are still politically quite inexperienced. Most successful political careers benefit from a serious dose of diplomacy which helps to avoid damaging crashes into the speed barrier. Your mentor for instance might have contemplated the Howard Era would have to end eventually. Ask yourself why people actively vote for environmental protection in the 21C. Whatever race, colour or creed. The ecological issues are only going to get bigger. Worth reflecting on.
what i want to know is where is the money coming from?
who is paying for all of noel pearson’s dishonest propaganda?
has anyone seen the annual report of cape york institute yet? has anyone seen the annual report of balkanu yet?
how much federal and state money has gone into these two organisation over the past 10 years. has it been accounted for? how has it been spent?
i have not been able to find a word on the web.
Occupied/oppressed populations (or genders) often produce a Quisling or Vichy (or Arndt). Even the Oxley Moron was a similar exudation. Often these people are sincere, but mostly they are simply menials who’d otherwise be the local dog turd collector, to paraphrase Hanna Arendt, ”the evil of banality”.
Can anyone recall the last (any) time an Aboriginal protest received such backing from the meeja, esp Newscrap?
It is not only the Tories who write ideologically, or who use political tactics. When landholders are restrained from using land in an income-earning way, they suffer loss. Where conservation values call for restrictions on land use, then the whole society – in this case including Gold Coast high-risers, Brisbane waterfronters and pastoral land-clearers – ought to share the burden.
Cape York native title holders are numerous and diverse, like any group of people, so of course some will be more adamant than others about particular conservation proposals. But they have strong conservation credentials, and they are used to balancing conservation of land with economic use, and their decision-making allows for differing viewpoints. They are right to begin organising when others, who won’t trust theim to make sensible decisions, use State power to impose blanket restrictions on native title holders, employing lack of warning and consultation as a political tactic.
Interesting to see the Left launching this offensive against Pearson. Pearson’s concerns are a miniature reproduction of the concerns all Australians should have for the political influence of the Greens and the threat they represent to economic advancement for vast swathes of Australians.
Of particular concern is the ‘deal’ stitched up by The Wilderness Society and the Labor government, with no consultation with Indigenous communities.
The Left will sell their grandmother if it suits them, and the Left and their ‘Green’ co-ideologues will certainly put trees before people and jobs and a secure economic future for these Indigenous communities.