• Joanne Copp
• Social Responsibilities Committee, Anglican Diocese of Brisbane

Read the full text

Image: feral arts / flickr

01 October 2010The Queensland State Government has repeatedly claimed that the wild rivers legislation does not impede sustainable development. There are two aspects to the Social Responsibility Committee‘s (SRC) and the affected communities‘ objections to the wild rivers legislation.

The first relates to how it has been implemented, namely without consent of Indigenous groups. In doing so, it fails to meet the standards set by the United Nations International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People to which the Commonwealth Government has given its support and contravenes the Cape York Peninsula Heads of Agreement (signed by the State Government in 1996).

The second relates to what the legislation actually does.  The overall effect of the many prohibitions and restrictions is that very limited agricultural, urban and industrial development (eg. small scale, eco-friendly tourism) is allowed within High Preservation Areas (HPAs) and nominated waterways of PAs of wild river areas.  This is particularly problematic because these areas (referred to by local residents as river land) are the most productive and therefore most viable land for those relying upon the land for their income.

On both fronts, rights have been violated - both the right to consent by Indigenous groups and the right to derive income from the land by all groups, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

This paper addresses the second set of rights, by demonstrating how sustainable development is impeded.

Image: 'wetlands kowanyama', Mitchell River, Cape York, feral arts / flickr

This paper is the final report of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane's Social Responsibilities Committee.  Other information and earlier reports can be accessed from the following links.

Information Pack on Wild Rivers