The dispute between the Wilderness Society and indigenous groups opposed to the Queensland Government’s Wild Rivers Act continues to escalate.
This week the “Give Us A Go” campaign accused the Wilderness Society of being too scared to come and meet them to discuss the issue of Aboriginal consent to what they call the locking up of land owned by indigenous communities.
The Wilderness Society has hit back, suggesting the Wild Rivers campaign may be funded by mining companies that stand to benefit from it and that the Liberal National Party are closely involved in the campaign, which has also targeted the Queensland Government. There are suggestions that Liberal-aligned research firm Crosby-Textor has been supporting the campaign.
Give Us A Go spokesman Lew Griffiths categorically denies any links with the LNP or Crosby Textor, and says there has been no mining company support for the campaign whatsoever.
The recently-established Give Us A Go website was registered by Prue Gusmerini, a young lawyer and Australian Republican Movement official who has previously worked for Crosby Textor. Ms Gusmerini told Crikey she no longer worked for the firm (Crosby Textor principal Mark Textor did not return Crikey’s call). It also appears Ms Gusmerini has been involved with the Wild Rivers campaign from the beginning. In 2005, as a final year law student Ms Gusmerini joined the Cape York Land Council as an intern and worked as a policy officer. She wrote an article attacking the Wild Rivers Act in 2006.
There are widespread rumours in Queensland, however, that the Liberal National Party wants to use the issue for its own purposes. Former young Australian of the Year Tania Major has been the face of the Give Us A Go campaign, along with Noel Pearson, and appeared on Q&A opposite Anna Bligh on the issue. According to LNP sources she will shortly announce that she will run against Labor’s Jim Turnour in the seat of Leichhardt for the party. Major last week eagerly joined in the current campaign run by News Ltd newspapers against the Bligh Government, claiming “dodgy government backdoor deals” are how business is conducted in Queensland.
LNP president Bruce McIver was also seen in Brisbane last Friday evening talking to indigenous representatives from Cape York and urging them to join the LNP and help write policy on mining in indigenous communities.
Pearson of course has a strong relationship with The Australian, which regularly gives him an op-ed platform to promote himself and his conservative views on indigenous issues. Backing indigenous groups against conservation groups perfectly fits News Ltd’s agenda of portraying conservation groups as out-of-touch elitists.
But Griffiths accuses the Wilderness Society of dealing in fringe issues when the central problem is the lack of consent from Aboriginal communities to Wild Rivers framework. The Government’s consultation process prior to the declaration of the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Basins last year was a sham, he says, and prompted the Human Rights Commission’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner to criticise the lack of effective consultation. There is deep anger in indigenous communities on the Cape, Griffiths says, given it is precisely those communities who have looked after local rivers effectively for so long. The same sort of dispossession without consent wouldn’t be tolerated in white communities.
The Wilderness Society says the emphasis on consent is rich coming from Pearson, who supported the Northern Territory intervention despite the lack of consent from Territory indigenous communities. They also argue, as does the Queensland Government, that Wild Rivers doesn’t “lock up” affected areas but permits most developmental and economic activities as well as traditional practices.
Indigenous communities see Wild Rivers as an act of dispossession driven by south-eastern political deals. The Wilderness Society sees a right-wing campaign to undermine safeguards on the few pristine rivers systems left in the country. Neither side is taking a backward step.
You know I lveo your work, Bernard, but a few points need to be made – Lew Griffiths (Pearson’s right hand man) refers to the public consultation process on Wild Rivers as a “sham”. Surprising, given that it was Pearson’s group who was paid tens of thousands of dollars by the Blight government to run… you guessed it, a public consultation on the Wild Rivers.
Simple fact is, Pearson wants to mine Cape York. Most Aboriginal people, however, don’t. So Pearson and his mates are running a very aggressive, very dirty campaign against it. Problem is, just like Pearson is learning on the NT intervention, you can only prop up sh*t like this for so long before it collapses under the weight of its own detritus.
Methinks the anti-Wild Rivers campaign is heading for troubled waters soon.
Bernand is right, this just gets murkier and murkier, and Pearson’s highly deceptive tactics and political campaign is becoming more apparent.
The article last week from the wilderness society was particularly illuminating – evidence that communities are being lied to about what wild rivers means. Lew Griffiths is kidding himself to portray that really this about consent – it is in fact about Pearson’s power and control and deeply old-fashioned views about development (dig it up, chop it down, ship it off, make a buck).
It’s about time the media began to seriously scrutinise Pearson’s activities, including where he is getting all the cash to run this campaign. For too long has he had a open run in the press with accountability or challenge (barring an exceptional interview from Leigh Sales a few weeks back …)
I’m always fascinated by advocates throwing up the claim “we’ve got legal advice” to support their position. Ms Gusmerini tries and then demonstrates her inexperience in weak discourse in the linked paper on Austlii
e.g. Point B re clearing native vegetation preventing the use of grass, bark, stones etc… a clear misrepresentation, a HPA prevents broadscale clearing of the floodplain and only affects woody native vegetation – nothing there about grasses, stones and if removal of the bark doesn’t kill the tree (as per traditional practices) it is not prevented.
It’s disappointing that a minority is acting as if they speak for the majority and then can’t get some basics of law correct.
ah legal advice remember the question prperly framed gives you the answer you want.
In fact I think the figure that was given to balkanu to run the wild rivers consultation was $70,000.
the “consultants” had a wonderful time running round the cape spending taxpayers’ money, living the high life, while doing absolutely nothing.
has balkanu acquitted the funds? that would be nice.
has balkanu produced a report? that would be nice, even if it simply quotes “indigenous people” (noel pearson and his flunkies) and “indigenous communities” (Balkanu and Cape York Institute) as being 100% opposed to wild rivers.
wild rivers is nothing but a shonky political campaign run by noel pearson and his murdoch lickspittles.
As an aside, it was interesting to note some media this week about a wind farm proposal in which balkanu is involved.
one of the contenders in the project has publicly claimed that “informal payments” had been sought, and demanded a meeting with the premier about the irregularities.