The fact is that Pearson has been involved in negotiations over Wild Rivers since 2005, and despite support from many Indigenous people on Cape York and the Gulf Country, has been trying to bring down the legislation. The legislation protects rivers from industrial development and supports smaller-scale economic activity, contrary to what Pearson tells the media.

The way he has lined up with the right over the intervention and over his views on environment issues makes we wonder when he will announce his candidacy for the Senate for the Liberals …

You just gotta have it all!

The Cape York Institute was never allowed proper input into the Queensland Government’s Wild Rivers decision, something that is symptomatic of a wider problem with this Queensland Government.

becomes

NT Indigenous Communities were never allowed proper input into the Intervention, something that is symptomatic of a wider problem with this Australian Government.

So it is not consultation that Pearson is really upset about, it is simply that he doesn’t like the outcome. If he had just kept his nose out of the NT and worked hard in his own area he would be a lot more credible.

Pearson says he doesn’t want to harm the rivers with development. If that’s true then the WRAct won’t stop him. It is only to stop harm to the rivers, nothing more.

don’t they check his “facts”.

he’s a paid lobbyist of the first water himself. a pimp and a prostitute of the howard government if ever there was one.

how much government money has been pumped into balkanu and the cape york institute over the years.

has anyone seen the books? has there ever been any public accounting for all the taxpayer funds they receive?

what has happened to the money?

did balkanu or cape york institute for example receive any money to assist in the public consultations over the wild rivers legislation that mr pearson says never occurred?

Pearson says later:
“we’re not suggesting impropriety or illegality…”
But what else is he suggesting? I can’t see any other way of interpreting his words other than this public servant (and presumably many others) is be unable to discharge his duties with impartiality because of his past employment or personal views.

Put another way Pearson seems to allege that this public servant has failed in his obligations to behave ethically as prescribed in the Public Service Ethics Act 1994 (Qld) and has acted contrary to his obligations to act impartially and with integrity under the Public Service Act 2008 (Qld). It would seem that such behaviour is by definition, improper and illegal. This is a grossly unfair attack on all public servants professionalism and integrity and indicates a shocking wrong headedness or plain lack of knowledge about the way public servants do their job.

And who is the ‘we’ in Pearson’s statement? Is it Cape York traditional owners or is it his own private think tank/lobby group, the Cape York Institute which according to its website ” … champions reform in Indigenous economic and social polices ”? The difference between champion and lobby is subtle enough to evade me. If it is the Institute his complaint is not about lobbyists its just a foot stamp because his own lobbying was unsuccessful.

This was to prevent the Bjelke and other major party penchant for losing a political developer take over (say big agri, or white shoe) agenda against the Blacks and then indulging in a racist ‘consolation’ prize of offsetting their white supremacist disappointment with a green/national park still keeping control of the land out of Black control. Hence the whole ill will setting Black against Green to the delight of rednecks - the old divide and rule tactic.

Then on Starcke in Hopevale area and Jabiluka in NT Green and Black won famous campaigns in alliance. Howard matched the ALP on Cape York Land Use Agreement (another alliance triumph presented to a National Wilderness Conference around 1997 - attended by one Peter Garrett too, I know because I sate nearby - of $40M implementation funding. This was the fraught 1996 federal election.

But Noel doesn’t talk now years later about Howard deliberately breaking that $40M election promise in a time of boom by PM Howard. Perhaps his silence on that, or pragmatism, was the price of getting his CY Foundation off the ground, building a leadership programme and tapping into the business community close to the Howard Coalition in Sydney etc. Not sure. Only Noel will know.

But all this history affects where we are today. Take responsibility would be my counsel and best of luck with it all too. Not too late to resolve this Mr Rudd, just as Stimulus 1 and 2 seemed like a real good version of GST rollback to me, by another name of course. Aint that grand, to see a regressive tax be regressed.